Att #2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan — City Council/Public Financing Authority, May 5, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

Minor bug fixes resulted in the release of versions 4.1 and 4.2. A French language version was also made available for v4.2.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Acknowledgements 30 5 Name of Contact Person: All audit data are entered on the Reporting Worksheet Email Address: Value can be entered by user
Telephone | Ext.: Value calculated based on input data
Name of City / Utility: These cells contain recommended default values City/Town/Municipality:

State / Province: Pcnt: Value:

Country: 0.25%
Year: 2021 Calendar Year
Start Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format
End Date: Enter MM/YYYY numeric format
Audit Preparation Date: 9/19/2022
Volume Reporting Units:

PWSID / Other ID:

If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at: [email protected] The spreadsheet contains several separate worksheets. Sheets can be accessed using the tabs towards the bottom of the screen, or by clicking the buttons below.

Chris Davis
Acre-feet
Please begin by providing the following information The following guidance will help you complete the Audit California (CA)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0
City of Huntington Beach
The following worksheets are available by clicking the buttons below or selecting the tabs along the bottom of the page Huntington Beach
chris.davis@surfcity-hb,org
Auditors are strongly encouraged to refer to the most current edition of AWWA M36 Manual for Water Audits for detailed guidance on the water auditing process and targetting loss reduction levels This spreadsheet-based water audit tool is designed to help quantify and track water losses associated with water distribution systems and identify areas for improved efficiency and cost recovery. It provides a "top-down" summary water audit format, and is not meant to take the place of a full-scale, comprehensive water audit format.

CA3010053
USA
Use of Option
(Radio) Buttons:

Select the default percentage
by choosing the option button
on the left
To enter a value, choose
this button and enter a
value in the cell to the right
Instructions
The current sheet.

Enter contact
information and basic
audit details (year,
units etc)
Performance
Indicators
Review the
performance
indicators to evaluate
the results of the audit
Comments
Enter comments to
explain how values
were calculated or to
document data sources
Water Balance
The values entered in
the Reporting
Worksheet are used
to populate the Water
Balance
Dashboard
A graphical summary of
the water balance and
Non-Revenue Water
components
Grading Matrix
Presents the possible
grading options for
each input component
of the audit
Service Connection
Diagram
Diagrams depicting
possible customer
service connection line
configurations
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements for
the AWWA Free Water
Audit Software v5.0
Loss Control
Planning
Use this sheet to
interpret the results of
the audit validity score
and performance
indicators
Definitions
Use this sheet to
understand the terms
used in the audit
process
Example Audits
Reporting Worksheet
and Performance
Indicators examples
are shown for two
validated audits
Reporting Worksheet
Enter the required data
on this worksheet to
calculate the water
balance and data grading
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Instructions 1
Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:

Volume from own sources: 7 23,232.040 acre-ft/yr n/a acre-ft/yr Water imported: 7 3,250.500 acre-ft/yr 7 acre-ft/yr
Water exported: acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 26,482.540 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 24,575.150 acre-ft/yr
Billed unmetered: acre-ft/yr
Unbilled metered: acre-ft/yr Pcnt: Value:

Unbilled unmetered: 5 66.206 acre-ft/yr 1.25% acre-ft/yr24061 AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 24,641.357 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 1,841.183 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:

Unauthorized consumption: 66.206 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies: 3 61.592 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors: 61.438 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses: 189.236 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 1,651.947 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES: 1,841.183 acre-ft/yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 1,907.390 acre-ft/yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 9 600.2 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 54,605 Service connection density: 91 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 70.3 psi

COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $34,994,880 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $2.21 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $635.86 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/100 cubic feet (ccf)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 68 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Reporting Worksheet

66.206
2021 1/2021 - 12/2021
City of Huntington Beach (CA3010053)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property
boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water
supplied
OR
value
?Click here:
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.

Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.

Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 2 Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach (CA3010053) Reporting Year:

System Attributes:

Apparent Losses: 189.236 acre-ft/yr + Real Losses: 1,651.947 acre-ft/yr = Water Losses: 1,841.183 acre-ft/yr Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): 900.79 acre-ft/yr Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $182,173
Annual cost of Real Losses: $1,050,399 Valued at Variable Production Cost Performance Indicators:

Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 7.2% Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 3.6% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 3.09 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day: 27.01 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A
Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 0.38 gallons/connection/day/psi From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 1,651.95 acre-feet/year

1.83 * This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

System Attributes and Performance Indicators
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 68 out of 100 *** Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:
2021 1/2021 - 12/2021
Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton ?
?
American Water Works Association.

WAS v5.0
Financial:

Operational Efficiency:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Performance Indicators 3 General Comment:

Audit Item Comment
Volume from own sources:

Vol. from own sources: Master meter
error adjustment:

Water imported:

Water imported: master meter error
adjustment:

Water exported:

Water exported: master meter error
adjustment:

Billed metered:

Billed unmetered:

Unbilled metered:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

User Comments
Use this worksheet to add comments or notes to explain how an input value was calculated, or to document the sources of the information used.

WAS
American Water Works Association.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 4
Audit Item Comment
Unbilled unmetered:

Unauthorized consumption:

Customer metering inaccuracies:

Systematic data handling errors:

Length of mains:

Number of active AND inactive
service connections:

Average length of customer service
line:

Average operating pressure:

Total annual cost of operating water
system:

Customer retail unit cost (applied to
Apparent Losses):

Variable production cost (applied to
Real Losses):

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 5
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 6
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 7
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 8
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 9
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 10
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 11
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 12
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 13
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 14
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 15
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 16
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 17
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 18
Audit Item Comment
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 19
Audit Item Comment
7 AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Comments 20
Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year: 2021 1/2021 - 12/2021
Data Validity Score: 68
Water Exported Revenue Water

0.000 0.000
Billed Metered Consumption (water exported
is removed) Revenue Water
24,575.150
Own Sources Authorized
Consumption 24,575.150 Billed Unmetered Consumption 24,575.150

0.000
24,641.357 Unbilled Metered Consumption

0.000
23,232.040 66.206 Unbilled Unmetered Consumption

66.206
System Input Water Supplied Unauthorized Consumption 1,907.390 26,482.540 Apparent Losses 66.206
26,482.540 189.236 Customer Metering Inaccuracies

61.592
Systematic Data Handling Errors
Water Losses 61.438
Water Imported 1,841.183 Leakage on Transmission and/or Distribution Mains
Real Losses Not broken down
3,250.500 1,651.947 Leakage and Overflows at Utility's Storage Tanks
Not broken down
Leakage on Service Connections
Not broken down
AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Water Balance
Non-Revenue Water
(NRW)
Billed Authorized Consumption
Unbilled Authorized Consumption
(Adjusted for known
errors)
Billed Water Exported
City of Huntington Beach (CA3010053)
WAS v5.0
American Water Works Association.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Water Balance 21 Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year: 2021 Show me the VOLUME of Non-Revenue Water Data Validity Score: 68 Show me the COST of Non-Revenue Water AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Dashboard
1/2021 - 12/2021
City of Huntington Beach (CA3010053)
0 200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Cost $
Total Cost of NRW =$1,274,670
Unbilled metered (valued at Var. Prod. Cost)
Unbilled unmetered (valued at Var. Prod. Cost)
Unauth. consumption
Cust. metering inaccuracies
Syst. data handling errors
Real Losses (valued at Var. Prod. Cost)
WAS v5.0
American Water Works Association.

Water Exported
Authorized Consumption
Water Losses
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Water Exported
Water Imported
Volume From Own Sources
Water Exported
Billed Auth. Cons.

Unbilled Auth. Cons.

Apparent Losses
Real Losses
Water Exported
Revenue Water
Non Revenue Water
The graphic below is a visual representation of the
Water Balance with bar heights propotional to the
volume of the audit components
Water Exported
Water Supplied
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Dashboard 22
Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Volume from own sources:

Select this grading only if
the water utility
purchases/imports all of
its water resources (i.e.
has no sources of its
own)
Less than 25% of water production
sources are metered, remaining
sources are estimated. No regular
meter accuracy testing or electronic
calibration conducted.
25% - 50% of treated water
production sources are metered;
other sources estimated. No regular
meter accuracy testing or electronic
calibration conducted.

Conditions between
2 and 4
50% - 75% of treated water
production sources are metered,
other sources estimated.

Occasional meter accuracy testing
or electronic calibration conducted.

Conditions between
4 and 6
At least 75% of treated water
production sources are metered, or at
least 90% of the source flow is derived
from metered sources. Meter
accuracy testing and/or electronic
calibration of related instrumentation is
conducted annually. Less than 25%
of tested meters are found outside of
+/- 6% accuracy.

Conditions between
6 and 8
100% of treated water production
sources are metered, meter accuracy
testing and electronic calibration of
related instrumentation is conducted
annually, less than 10% of meters are
found outside of +/- 6% accuracy
Conditions between
8 and 10
100% of treated water production
sources are metered, meter accuracy
testing and electronic calibration of
related instrumentation is conducted
semi-annually, with less than 10%
found outside of +/- 3% accuracy.

Procedures are reviewed by a third
party knowledgeable in the M36
methodology.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Volume from
own Sources" component:
to qualify for 2:

Organize and launch efforts to
collect data for determining volume
from own sources
to maintain 10:

Standardize meter accuracy test
frequency to semi-annual, or more
frequent, for all meters. Repair or
replace meters outside of +/- 3%
accuracy. Continually investigate/pilot
improving metering technology.

Volume from own sources
master meter and supply error
adjustment:

Select n/a only if the
water utility fails to have
meters on its sources of
supply
Inventory information on meters
and paper records of measured
volumes exist but are incomplete
and/or in a very crude condition;
data error cannot be determined
No automatic datalogging of
production volumes; daily readings
are scribed on paper records
without any accountability controls.

Flows are not balanced across the
water distribution system:
tank/storage elevation changes are
not employed in calculating the
"Volume from own sources"
component and archived flow data
is adjusted only when grossly
evident data error occurs.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Production meter data is logged
automatically in electronic format
and reviewed at least on a monthly
basis with necessary corrections
implemented. "Volume from own
sources" tabulations include
estimate of daily changes in
tanks/storage facilities. Meter data is
adjusted when gross data errors
occur, or occasional meter testing
deems this necessary.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Hourly production meter data logged
automatically & reviewed on at least a
weekly basis. Data is adjusted to
correct gross error when
meter/instrumentation equipment
malfunction is detected; and/or error is
confirmed by meter accuracy testing.

Tank/storage facility elevation
changes are automatically used in
calculating a balanced "Volume from
own sources" component, and data
gaps in the archived data are
corrected on at least a weekly basis.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Continuous production meter data is
logged automatically & reviewed each
business day. Data is adjusted to
correct gross error from detected
meter/instrumentation equipment
malfunction and/or results of meter
accuracy testing. Tank/storage
facility elevation changes are
automatically used in "Volume from
own sources" tabulations and data
gaps in the archived data are
corrected on a daily basis.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Computerized system (SCADA or
similar) automatically balances flows
from all sources and storages; results
are reviewed each business day. Tight
accountability controls ensure that all
data gaps that occur in the archived
flow data are quickly detected and
corrected. Regular calibrations
between SCADA and sources meters
ensures minimal data transfer error.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Master meter
and supply error adjustment"
component:
to qualify for 2:

Develop a plan to restructure
recordkeeping system to capture all
flow data; set a procedure to review
flow data on a daily basis to detect
input errors. Obtain more reliable
information about existing meters
by conducting field inspections of
meters and related instrumentation,
and obtaining manufacturer
literature.
to maintain 10:

Monitor meter innovations for
development of more accurate and less
expensive flowmeters. Continue to
replace or repair meters as they
perform outside of desired accuracy
limits. Stay abreast of new and more
accurate water level instruments to
better record tank/storage levels and
archive the variations in storage
volume. Keep current with SCADA
and data management systems to
ensure that archived data is well-
managed and error free.

Water Imported:

Select n/a if the water
utility's supply is
exclusively from its own
water resources (no bulk
purchased/ imported
water)
Less than 25% of imported water
sources are metered, remaining
sources are estimated. No regular
meter accuracy testing.
25% - 50% of imported water
sources are metered; other sources
estimated. No regular meter
accuracy testing.

Conditions between
2 and 4
50% - 75% of imported water
sources are metered, other sources
estimated. Occasional meter
accuracy testing conducted.

Conditions between
4 and 6
At least 75% of imported water
sources are metered, meter accuracy
testing and/or electronic calibration of
related instrumentation is conducted
annually for all meter installations.

Less than 25% of tested meters are
found outside of +/- 6% accuracy.

Conditions between
6 and 8
100% of imported water sources are
metered, meter accuracy testing and
electronic calibration of related
instrumentation is conducted
annually, less than 10% of meters are
found outside of +/- 6% accuracy
Conditions between
8 and 10
100% of imported water sources are
metered, meter accuracy testing and
electronic calibration of related
instrumentation is conducted semi-
annually for all meter installations, with
less than 10% of accuracy tests found
outside of +/- 3% accuracy.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Grading Matrix
The grading assigned to each audit component and the corresponding recommended improvements and actions are highlighted in yellow. Audit accuracy is likely to be improved by prioritizing those items shown in red to qualify for 6:

Refine computerized data collection and archive to include hourly production meter data that is reviewed at least on a weekly basis to detect specific data anomalies and gaps.

Use daily net storage change to balance flows in calculating "Water Supplied" volume. Necessary corrections to data errors are implemented on a weekly basis.
to qualify for 8:

Ensure that all flow data is collected and archived on at least an hourly basis. All data is reviewed and detected errors corrected each business day. Tank/storage levels variations are employed in calculating balanced "Water
Supplied" component. Adjust production meter data for
gross error and inaccuracy confirmed by testing.
to qualify for 10:

Maintain annual meter accuracy testing and calibration of related instrumentation for all meter installations. Repair or replace meters outside of +/- 3% accuracy. Investigate new meter technology; pilot one or more replacements with
innovative meters in attempt to further improve meter
accuracy.

WATER SUPPLIED
to qualify for 4:

Locate all water production sources on maps and in the
field, launch meter accuracy testing for existing meters, begin to install meters on unmetered water production
sources and replace any obsolete/defective meters.
to qualify for 6:

Formalize annual meter accuracy testing for all source
meters; specify the frequency of testing. Complete
installation of meters on unmetered water production
sources and complete replacement of all obsolete/defective meters.
to qualify for 8:

Conduct annual meter accuracy testing and calibration of related instrumentation on all meter installations on a regular basis. Complete project to install new, or replace defective existing, meters so that entire production meter population is metered. Repair or replace meters outside of +/- 6% accuracy.
to qualify for 4:

Install automatic datalogging equipment on production
meters. Complete installation of level instrumentation at all tanks/storage facilities and include tank level data in automatic calculation routine in a computerized system.

Construct a computerized listing or spreadsheet to
archive input volumes, tank/storage volume changes and
import/export flows in order to determine the composite "Water Supplied" volume for the distribution system. Set a procedure to review this data on a monthly basis to
detect gross anomalies and data gaps.
to qualify for 10:

Link all production and tank/storage facility elevation change data to a Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition (SCADA) System, or similar computerized monitoring/control system, and establish automatic flow balancing algorithm and
regularly calibrate between SCADA and source meters. Data is reviewed and corrected each business day.

WAS 5.0
American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 23 Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WATER SUPPLIED
Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Water
Imported Volume" component:
(Note: usually the water
supplier selling the water -
"the Exporter" - to the utility
being audited is responsible
to maintain the metering
installation measuring the
imported volume. The utility
should coordinate carefully
with the Exporter to ensure
that adequate meter upkeep
takes place and an accurate
measure of the Water
Imported volume is
quantified. )
to qualify for 2:

Review bulk water purchase
agreements with partner suppliers;
confirm requirements for use and
maintenance of accurate metering.

Identify needs for new or
replacement meters with goal to
meter all imported water sources.
to maintain 10:

Standardize meter accuracy test
frequency to semi-annual, or more
frequent, for all meters. Continue to
conduct calibration of related
instrumentation on a semi-annual
basis. Repair or replace meters
outside of +/- 3% accuracy.

Continually investigate/pilot improving
metering technology.

Water imported master meter
and supply error adjustment:

Select n/a if the Imported
water supply is
unmetered, with Imported
water quantities estimated
on the billing invoices sent
by the Exporter to the
purchasing Utility.

Inventory information on imported
meters and paper records of
measured volumes exist but are
incomplete and/or in a very crude
condition; data error cannot be
determined Written agreement(s)
with water Exporter(s) are missing
or written in vague language
concerning meter management and
testing.

No automatic datalogging of
imported supply volumes; daily
readings are scribed on paper
records without any accountability
controls to confirm data accuracy
and the absence of errors and data
gaps in recorded volumes. Written
agreement requires meter accuracy
testing but is vague on the details of
how and who conducts the testing.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Imported supply metered flow data is
logged automatically in electronic
format and reviewed at least on a
monthly basis by the Exporter with
necessary corrections implemented.

Meter data is adjusted by the
Exporter when gross data errors are
detected. A coherent data trail
exists for this process to protect both
the selling and the purchasing Utility.

Written agreement exists and clearly
states requirements and roles for
meter accuracy testing and data
management.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Hourly Imported supply metered data
is logged automatically & reviewed on
at least a weekly basis by the
Exporter. Data is adjusted to correct
gross error when
meter/instrumentation equipment
malfunction is detected; and to correct
for error confirmed by meter accuracy
testing. Any data gaps in the archived
data are detected and corrected
during the weekly review. A coherent
data trail exists for this process to
protect both the selling and the
purchasing Utility.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Continuous Imported supply metered
flow data is logged automatically &
reviewed each business day by the
Exporter. Data is adjusted to correct
gross error from detected
meter/instrumentation equipment
malfunction and/or results of meter
accuracy testing. Any data
errors/gaps are detected and
corrected on a daily basis. A data trail
exists for the process to protect both
the selling and the purchasing Utility.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Computerized system (SCADA or
similar) automatically records data
which is reviewed each business day
by the Exporter. Tight accountability
controls ensure that all error/data gaps
that occur in the archived flow data are
quickly detected and corrected. A
reliable data trail exists and contract
provisions for meter testing and data
management are reviewed by the
selling and purchasing Utility at least
once every five years.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Water
imported master meter and
supply error adjustment"
component:
to qualify for 2:

Monitor meter innovations for
development of more accurate and less
expensive flowmeters; work with the
Exporter to help identify meter
replacement needs. Keep
communication lines with Exporters
open and maintain productive relations.

Keep the written agreement current
with clear and explicit language that
meets the ongoing needs of all parties.

Water Exported:

Select n/a if the water
utility sells no bulk water
to neighboring water
utilities (no exported water
sales)
Less than 25% of exported water
sources are metered, remaining
sources are estimated. No regular
meter accuracy testing.
25% - 50% of exported water
sources are metered; other sources
estimated. No regular meter
accuracy testing.

Conditions between
2 and 4
50% - 75% of exported water
sources are metered, other sources
estimated. Occasional meter
accuracy testing conducted.

Conditions between
4 and 6
At least 75% of exported water
sources are metered, meter accuracy
testing and/or electronic calibration
conducted annually. Less than 25%
of tested meters are found outside of
+/- 6% accuracy.

Conditions between
6 and 8
100% of exported water sources are
metered, meter accuracy testing and
electronic calibration of related
instrumentation is conducted
annually, less than 10% of meters are
found outside of +/- 6% accuracy
Conditions between
8 and 10
100% of exported water sources are
metered, meter accuracy testing and
electronic calibration of related
instrumentation is conducted semi-
annually for all meter installations, with
less than 10% of accuracy tests found
outside of +/- 3% accuracy.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Water
Exported Volume"
component:
(Note: usually, if the water
utility being audited sells
(Exports) water to a
neighboring purchasing
Utility, it is the responsibility
of the utility exporting the
water to maintain the
metering installation
measuring the Exported
volume. The utility exporting
the water should ensure that
adequate meter upkeep
takes place and an accurate
measure of the Water
Exported volume is
quantified. )
to qualify for 2:

Review bulk water sales
agreements with purchasing
utilities; confirm requirements for
use & upkeep of accurate metering.

Identify needs to install new, or
replace defective meters as
needed.
to maintain 10:

Ensure that all Imported supply metered flow data is
collected and archived on at least an hourly basis. All data is reviewed and errors/data gaps are corrected each
business day.

To qualify for 4:

Locate all imported water sources on maps and in the
field, launch meter accuracy testing for existing meters, begin to install meters on unmetered imported water
interconnections and replace obsolete/defective meters. to qualify for 6:

Formalize annual meter accuracy testing for all imported water meters, planning for both regular meter accuracy
testing and calibration of the related instrumentation.

Continue installation of meters on unmetered imported
water interconnections and replacement of
obsolete/defective meters.
to qualify for 6:

Formalize annual meter accuracy testing for all exported water meters. Continue installation of meters on unmetered exported water interconnections and replacement of
obsolete/defective meters.
to qualify for 8:

Complete project to install new, or replace defective, meters on all exported water interconnections. Maintain annual meter accuracy testing for all exported water meters.

Repair or replace meters outside of +/- 6% accuracy.
to qualify for 10:

Maintain annual meter accuracy testing for all meters. Repair or replace meters outside of +/- 3% accuracy. Investigate new meter technology; pilot one or more replacements with innovative meters in attempt to improve meter accuracy. to qualify for 10:

Conduct meter accuracy testing for all meters on a semi- annual basis, along with calibration of all related
instrumentation. Repair or replace meters outside of +/- 3% accuracy. Investigate new meter technology; pilot one or more replacements with innovative meters in attempt to
improve meter accuracy.
to qualify for 10:

Conduct accountability checks to confirm that all Imported supply metered data is reviewed and corrected each business day by the Exporter. Results of all meter accuracy tests and data corrections should be available for sharing between the Exporter and the purchasing Utility. Establish a schedule for a regular review and updating of the contractual language in the written agreement between the selling and the purchasing Utility; at least every five years.

To qualify for 4:

Locate all exported water sources on maps and in field, launch meter accuracy testing for existing meters, begin to install meters on unmetered exported water
interconnections and replace obsolete/defective meters
to qualify for 8:

Complete project to install new, or replace defective, meters on all imported water interconnections. Maintain annual meter accuracy testing for all imported water meters and conduct calibration of related instrumentation at least annually. Repair or replace meters outside of +/- 6%
accuracy.
to qualify for 4:

Install automatic datalogging equipment on Imported
supply meters. Set a procedure to review this data on a monthly basis to detect gross anomalies and data gaps.

Launch discussions with the Exporters to jointly review terms of the written agreements regarding meter accuracy testing and data management; revise the terms as
necessary.
to qualify for 6:

Refine computerized data collection and archive to include hourly Imported supply metered flow data that is reviewed at least on a weekly basis to detect specific data anomalies and gaps. Make necessary corrections to errors/data
errors on a weekly basis.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 24 Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WATER SUPPLIED
Water exported master meter
and supply error adjustment:

Select n/a only if the
water utility fails to have
meters on its exported
supply interconnections.

Inventory information on exported
meters and paper records of
measured volumes exist but are
incomplete and/or in a very crude
condition; data error cannot be
determined Written agreement(s)
with the utility purchasing the water
are missing or written in vague
language concerning meter
management and testing.

No automatic datalogging of
exported supply volumes; daily
readings are scribed on paper
records without any accountability
controls to confirm data accuracy
and the absence of errors and data
gaps in recorded volumes. Written
agreement requires meter accuracy
testing but is vague on the details of
how and who conducts the testing.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Exported metered flow data is
logged automatically in electronic
format and reviewed at least on a
monthly basis, with necessary
corrections implemented. Meter
data is adjusted by the utility selling
(exporting) the water when gross
data errors are detected. A
coherent data trail exists for this
process to protect both the utility
exporting the water and the
purchasing Utility. Written
agreement exists and clearly states
requirements and roles for meter
accuracy testing and data
management.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Hourly exported supply metered data
is logged automatically & reviewed on
at least a weekly basis by the utility
selling the water. Data is adjusted to
correct gross error when
meter/instrumentation equipment
malfunction is detected; and to correct
for error found by meter accuracy
testing. Any data gaps in the archived
data are detected and corrected
during the weekly review. A coherent
data trail exists for this process to
protect both the selling (exporting)
utility and the purchasing Utility.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Continuous exported supply metered
flow data is logged automatically &
reviewed each business day by the
utility selling (exporting) the water.

Data is adjusted to correct gross error
from detected meter/instrumentation
equipment malfunction and any error
confirmed by meter accuracy testing.

Any data errors/gaps are detected
and corrected on a daily basis. A
data trail exists for the process to
protect both the selling (exporting)
Utility and the purchasing Utility.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Computerized system (SCADA or
similar) automatically records data
which is reviewed each business day
by the utility selling (exporting) the
water. Tight accountability controls
ensure that all error/data gaps that
occur in the archived flow data are
quickly detected and corrected. A
reliable data trail exists and contract
provisions for meter testing and data
management are reviewed by the
selling Utility and purchasing Utility at
least once every five years.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Water
exported master meter and
supply error adjustment"
component:
to qualify for 2:

Monitor meter innovations for
development of more accurate and less
expensive flowmeters; work with the
purchasing utilities to help identify
meter replacement needs. Keep
communication lines with the
purchasing utilities open and maintain
productive relations. Keep the written
agreement current with clear and
explicit language that meets the
ongoing needs of all parties.

Billed metered:
n/a (not applicable).

Select n/a only if the
entire customer
population is not metered
and is billed for water
service on a flat or fixed
rate basis. In such a case
the volume entered must
be zero.

Less than 50% of customers with
volume-based billings from meter
readings; flat or fixed rate billing
exists for the majority of the
customer population
At least 50% of customers with
volume-based billing from meter
reads; flat rate billing for others.

Manual meter reading is conducted,
with less than 50% meter read
success rate, remainding accounts'
consumption is estimated. Limited
meter records, no regular meter
testing or replacement. Billing data
maintained on paper records, with
no auditing.

Conditions between
2 and 4
At least 75% of customers with
volume-based, billing from meter
reads; flat or fixed rate billing for
remaining accounts. Manual meter
reading is conducted with at least
50% meter read success rate;
consumption for accounts with failed
reads is estimated. Purchase
records verify age of customer
meters; only very limited meter
accuracy testing is conducted.

Customer meters are replaced only
upon complete failure.

Computerized billing records exist,
but only sporadic internal auditing
conducted.

Conditions between
4 and 6
At least 90% of customers with
volume-based billing from meter
reads; consumption for remaining
accounts is estimated. Manual
customer meter reading gives at least
80% customer meter reading success
rate; consumption for accounts with
failed reads is estimated. Good
customer meter records eixst, but only
limited meter accuracy testing is
conducted. Regular replacement is
conducted for the oldest meters.

Computerized billing records exist with
annual auditing of summary statistics
conducting by utility personnel.

Conditions between
6 and 8
At least 97% of customers exist with
volume-based billing from meter
reads. At least 90% customer meter
reading success rate; or at least 80%
read success rate with planning and
budgeting for trials of Automatic
Meter Reading (AMR) or Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI) in one
or more pilot areas. Good customer
meter records. Regular meter
accuracy testing guides replacement
of statistically significant number of
meters each year. Routine auditing
of computerized billing records for
global and detailed statistics occurs
annually by utility personnel, and is
verified by third party at least once
every five years.

Conditions between
8 and 10
At least 99% of customers exist with
volume-based billing from meter reads.

At least 95% customer meter reading
success rate; or minimum 80% meter
reading success rate, with Automatic
Meter Reading (AMR) or Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI) trials
underway. Statistically significant
customer meter testing and
replacement program in place on a
continuous basis. Computerized billing
with routine, detailed auditing, including
field investigation of representative
sample of accounts undertaken
annually by utility personnel. Audit is
conducted by third party auditors at
least once every three years.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Billed
Metered Consumption"
component:

If n/a is selected because
the customer meter
population is unmetered,
consider establishing a
new policy to meter the
customer population and
employ water rates based
upon metered volumes.
to qualify for 2:

Conduct investigations or trials of
customer meters to select
appropriate meter models. Budget
funding for meter installations.

Investigate volume based water rate
structures.
to maintain 10:

Continue annual internal billing data
auditing, and third party auditing at
least every three years. Continue
customer meter accuracy testing to
ensure that accurate customer meter
readings are obtained and entered as
the basis for volume based billing. Stay
abreast of improvements in Automatic
Meter Reading (AMR) and Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and
information management. Plan and
budget for justified upgrades in
metering, meter reading and billing
data management to maintain very high
accuracy in customer metering and
billing.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
to qualify for 4:

Purchase and install meters on unmetered accounts.

Implement policies to improve meter reading success.

Catalog meter information during meter read visits to
identify age/model of existing meters. Test a minimal
number of meters for accuracy. Install computerized
billing system.
to qualify for 6:

Purchase and install meters on unmetered accounts.

Eliminate flat fee billing and establish appropriate water rate structure based upon measured consumption. Continue to achieve verifiable success in removing manual meter
reading barriers. Expand meter accuracy testing. Launch regular meter replacement program. Launch a program of annual auditing of global billing statistics by utility personnel. to qualify for 10:

Purchase and install meters on unmetered accounts. Launch Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) or Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) system trials if manual meter reading success rate of at least 99% is not achieved within a five-year program. Continue meter accuracy testing program.

Conduct planning and budgeting for large scale meter
replacement based upon meter life cycle analysis using
cumulative flow target. Continue annual detailed billing data auditing by utility personnel and conduct third party auditing at least once every three years.
to qualify for 10:

Conduct accountability checks to confirm that all exported metered flow data is reviewed and corrected each business day by the utility selling the water. Results of all meter accuracy tests and data corrections should be available for sharing between the utility and the purchasing Utility.

Establish a schedule for a regular review and updating of the contractual language in the written agreements with the purchasing utilities; at least every five years.
to qualify for 6:

Refine computerized data collection and archive to include hourly exported supply metered flow data that is reviewed at least on a weekly basis to detect specific data anomalies and gaps. Make necessary corrections to errors/data
errors on a weekly basis.
to qualify for 8:

Ensure that all exported metered flow data is collected and archived on at least an hourly basis. All data is reviewed and errors/data gaps are corrected each business day.
to qualify for 8:

Purchase and install meters on unmetered accounts. If
customer meter reading success rate is less than 97%,
assess cost-effectiveness of Automatic Meter Reading
(AMR) or Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system
for portion or entire system; or otherwise achieve ongoing improvements in manual meter reading success rate to
97% or higher. Refine meter accuracy testing program.

Set meter replacement goals based upon accuracy test
results. Implement annual auditing of detailed billing records by utility personnel and implement third party
auditing at least once every five years.
to qualify for 4:

Install automatic datalogging equipment on exported
supply meters. Set a procedure to review this data on a monthly basis to detect gross anomalies and data gaps.

Launch discussions with the purchasing utilities to jointly review terms of the written agreements regarding meter
accuracy testing and data management; revise the terms
as necessary.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 25 Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WATER SUPPLIED
Billed unmetered:

Select n/a if it is the policy
of the water utility to
meter all customer
connections and it has
been confirmed by
detailed auditing that all
customers do indeed
have a water meter; i.e.
no intentionally
unmetered accounts exist
Water utility policy does not require
customer metering; flat or fixed fee
billing is employed. No data is
collected on customer
consumption. The only estimates
of customer population
consumption available are derived
from data estimation methods using
average fixture count multiplied by
number of connections, or similar
approach.

Water utility policy does not require
customer metering; flat or fixed fee
billing is employed. Some metered
accounts exist in parts of the system
(pilot areas or District Metered
Areas) with consumption read
periodically or recorded on portable
dataloggers over one, three, or
seven day periods. Data from these
sample meters are used to infer
consumption for the total customer
population. Site specific estimation
methods are used for unusual
buildings/water uses.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Water utility policy does require
metering and volume based billing in
general. However, a liberal amount
of exemptions and a lack of clearly
written and communicated
procedures result in up to 20% of
billed accounts believed to be
unmetered by exemption; or the
water utility is in transition to
becoming fully metered, and a large
number of customers remain
unmetered. A rough estimate of the
annual consumption for all
unmetered accounts is included in
the annual water audit, with no
inspection of individual unmetered
accounts.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Water utility policy does require
metering and volume based billing but
established exemptions exist for a
portion of accounts such as municipal
buildings. As many as 15% of billed
accounts are unmetered due to this
exemption or meter installation
difficulties. Only a group estimate of
annual consumption for all unmetered
accounts is included in the annual
water audit, with no inspection of
individual unmetered accounts.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Water utility policy does require
metering and volume based billing for
all customer accounts. However, less
than 5% of billed accounts remain
unmetered because meter
installation is hindered by unusual
circumstances. The goal is to
minimize the number of unmetered
accounts. Reliable estimates of
consumption are obtained for these
unmetered accounts via site specific
estimation methods.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Water utility policy does require
metering and volume based billing for
all customer accounts. Less than 2%
of billed accounts are unmetered and
exist because meter installation is
hindered by unusual circumstances.

The goal exists to minimize the number
of unmetered accounts to the extent
that is economical. Reliable estimates
of consumption are obtained at these
accounts via site specific estimation
methods.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Billed
Unmetered Consumption"
component:
to qualify for 2:

Conduct research and evaluate
cost/benefit of a new water utility
policy to require metering of the
customer population; thereby
greatly reducing or eliminating
unmetered accounts. Conduct pilot
metering project by installing water
meters in small sample of customer
accounts and periodically reading
the meters or datalogging the water
consumption over one, three, or
seven day periods.
to maintain 10:

Continue to refine estimation methods
for unmetered consumption and
explore means to establish metering,
for as many billed remaining unmetered
accounts as is economically feasible.

Unbilled metered:
select n/a if all billing-
exempt consumption is
unmetered.

Billing practices exempt certain
accounts, such as municipal
buildings, but written policies do not
exist; and a reliable count of
unbilled metered accounts is
unavailable. Meter upkeep and
meter reading on these accounts is
rare and not considered a priority.

Due to poor recordkeeping and
lack of auditing, water consumption
for all such accounts is purely
guesstimated.

Billing practices exempt certain
accounts, such as municipal
buildings, but only scattered, dated
written directives exist to justify this
practice. A reliable count of unbilled
metered accounts is unavailable.

Sporadic meter replacement and
meter reading occurs on an as-
needed basis. The total annual
water consumption for all unbilled,
metered accounts is estimated
based upon approximating the
number of accounts and assigning
consumption from actively billed
accounts of same meter size.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Dated written procedures permit
billing exemption for specific
accounts, such as municipal
properties, but are unclear regarding
certain other types of accounts.

Meter reading is given low priority
and is sporadic. Consumption is
quantified from meter readings
where available. The total number
of unbilled, unmetered accounts
must be estimated along with
consumption volumes.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Written policies regarding billing
exemptions exist but adherence in
practice is questionable. Metering
and meter reading for municipal
buildings is reliable but sporadic for
other unbilled metered accounts.

Periodic auditing of such accounts is
conducted. Water consumption is
quantified directly from meter readings
where available, but the majority of the
consumption is estimated.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Written policy identifies the types of
accounts granted a billing exemption.

Customer meter management and
meter reading are considered
secondary priorities, but meter
reading is conducted at least annually
to obtain consumption volumes for
the annual water audit. High level
auditing of billing records ensures that
a reliable census of such accounts
exists.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Clearly written policy identifies the types
of accounts given a billing exemption,
with emphasis on keeping such
accounts to a minimum. Customer
meter management and meter reading
for these accounts is given proper
priority and is reliably conducted.

Regular auditing confirms this. Total
water consumption for these accounts
is taken from reliable readings from
accurate meters.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Unbilled
Metered Consumption"
component:
to qualify for 2:

Reassess the water utility's policy
allowing certain accounts to be
granted a billing exemption. Draft
an outline of a new written policy for
billing exemptions, with clear
justification as to why any accounts
should be exempt from billing, and
with the intention to keep the
number of such accounts to a
minimum.
to maintain 10:

Reassess the utility's philosophy in
allowing any water uses to go
"unbilled". It is possible to meter and
bill all accounts, even if the fee charged
for water consumption is discounted or
waived. Metering and billing all
accounts ensures that water
consumption is tracked and water
waste from plumbing leaks is detected
and minimized.

Unbilled unmetered:

Extent of unbilled, unmetered
consumption is unknown due to
unclear policies and poor
recordkeeping. Total consumption
is quantified based upon a purely
subjective estimate.

Clear extent of unbilled, unmetered
consumption is unknown, but a
number of events are randomly
documented each year, confirming
existence of such consumption, but
without sufficient documentation to
quantify an accurate estimate of the
annual volume consumed.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Extent of unbilled, unmetered
consumption is partially known, and
procedures exist to document
certain events such as
miscellaneous fire hydrant uses.

Formulae is used to quantify the
consumption from such events (time
running multiplied by typical flowrate,
multiplied by number of events).

Default value of

1.25% of system
input volume is
employed
Coherent policies exist for some forms
of unbilled, unmetered consumption
but others await closer evaluation.

Reasonable recordkeeping for the
managed uses exists and allows for
annual volumes to be quantified by
inference, but unsupervised uses are
guesstimated.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Clear policies and good
recordkeeping exist for some uses
(ex: water used in periodic testing of
unmetered fire connections), but
other uses (ex: miscellaneous uses of
fire hydrants) have limited oversight.

Total consumption is a mix of well
quantified use such as from formulae
(time running multiplied by typical
flow, multiplied by number of events)
or temporary meters, and relatively
subjective estimates of less regulated
use.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Clear policies exist to identify permitted
use of water in unbilled, unmetered
fashion, with the intention of minimizing
this type of consumption. Good
records document each occurrence
and consumption is quantified via
formulae (time running multiplied by
typical flow, multiplied by number of
events) or use of temporary meters.
to qualify for 4:

Implement a new water utility policy requiring customer metering. Launch or expand pilot metering study to
include several different meter types, which will provide data for economic assessment of full scale metering
options. Assess sites with access difficulties to devise means to obtain water consumption volumes. Begin
customer meter installation.
to qualify for 6:

Refine policy and procedures to improve customer metering participation for all but solidly exempt accounts. Assign staff resources to review billing records to identify errant unmetered properties. Specify metering needs and funding requirements to install sufficient meters to significant reduce the number of unmetered accounts
to qualify for 8:

Push to install customer meters on a full scale basis.

Refine metering policy and procedures to ensure that all accounts, including municipal properties, are designated for meters. Plan special efforts to address "hard-to-access" accounts. Implement procedures to obtain a reliable
consumption estimate for the remaining few unmetered
accounts awaiting meter installation.
to qualify for 10:

Continue customer meter installation throughout the service area, with a goal to minimize unmetered accounts. Sustain the effort to investigate accounts with access difficulties, and devise means to install water meters or otherwise measure water consumption.
to qualify for 4:

Review historic written directives and policy documents allowing certain accounts to be billing-exempt. Draft an outline of a written policy for billing exemptions, identify criteria that grants an exemption, with a goal of keeping this number of accounts to a minimum. Consider
increasing the priority of reading meters on unbilled
accounts at least annually.
to qualify for 6:

Draft a new written policy regarding billing exemptions based upon consensus criteria allowing this occurrence.

Assign resources to audit meter records and billing records to obtain census of unbilled metered accounts. Gradually include a greater number of these metered accounts to the routes for regular meter reading.
to qualify for 10:

Ensure that meter management (meter accuracy testing,
meter replacement) and meter reading activities for unbilled accounts are accorded the same priority as billed accounts.

Establish ongoing annual auditing process to ensure that water consumption is reliably collected and provided to the annual water audit process.
to qualify for 8:

Communicate billing exemption policy throughout the
organization and implement procedures that ensure proper account management. Conduct inspections of accounts
confirmed in unbilled metered status and verify that
accurate meters exist and are scheduled for routine meter readings. Gradually increase the number of unbilled
metered accounts that are included in regular meter
reading routes.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 26 Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WATER SUPPLIED
Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Unbilled
Unmetered Consumption"
component:
to qualify for 5:

Utilize the accepted default value of

1.25% of the volume of water
supplied as an expedient means to
gain a reasonable quantification of
this use.
to qualify for 2:

Establish a policy regarding what
water uses should be allowed to
remain as unbilled and unmetered.

Consider tracking a small sample of
one such use (ex: fire hydrant
flushings).
to qualify for 5:

Utilize accepted default value of

1.25% of the volume of water
supplied as an expedient means to
gain a reasonable quantification of
all such use. This is particularly
appropriate for water utilities who are
in the early stages of the water
auditing process, and should focus
on other components since the
volume of unbilled, umetered
consumption is usually a relatively
small quatity component, and other
larger-quantity components should
take priority.
to qualify for 6 or
greater:

Finalize policy and
begin to conduct field
checks to better
establish and quantify
such usage.

Proceed if top-down
audit exists and/or a
great volume of such
use is suspected.
to maintain 10:

Continue to refine policy and
procedures with intention of reducing
the number of allowable uses of water
in unbilled and unmetered fashion.

Any uses that can feasibly become
billed and metered should be converted
eventually.

Unauthorized consumption:

Extent of unauthorized
consumption is unknown due to
unclear policies and poor
recordkeeping. Total unauthorized
consumption is guesstimated.

Unauthorized consumption is a
known occurrence, but its extent is a
mystery. There are no requirements
to document observed events, but
periodic field reports capture some
of these occurrences. Total
unauthorized consumption is
approximated from this limited data.
conditions between
2 and 4
Procedures exist to document some
unauthorized consumption such as
observed unauthorized fire hydrant
openings. Use formulae to quantify
this consumption (time running
multiplied typical flowrate, multiplied
by number of events).

Default value of

0.25% of volume of
water supplied is
employed
Coherent policies exist for some forms
of unauthorized consumption (more
than simply fire hydrant misuse) but
others await closer evaluation.

Reasonable surveillance and
recordkeeping exist for occurrences
that fall under the policy. Volumes
quantified by inference from these
records.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Clear policies and good auditable
recordkeeping exist for certain events
(ex: tampering with water meters,
illegal bypasses of customer meters);
but other occurrences have limited
oversight. Total consumption is a
combination of volumes from
formulae (time x typical flow) and
subjective estimates of unconfirmed
consumption.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Clear policies exist to identify all known
unauthorized uses of water. Staff and
procedures exist to provide
enforcement of policies and detect
violations. Each occurrence is
recorded and quantified via formulae
(estimated time running multiplied by
typical flow) or similar methods. All
records and calculations should exist in
a form that can be audited by a third
party.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Unauthorized
Consumption" component:
to qualify for 5:

Use accepted default of 0.25% of
volume of water supplied.
to qualify for 2:

Review utility policy regarding what
water uses are considered
unauthorized, and consider
tracking a small sample of one such
occurrence (ex: unauthorized fire
hydrant openings)
to qualify for 5:

Utilize accepted default value of

0.25% of volume of water supplied
as an expedient means to gain a
reasonable quantification of all such
use. This is particularly appropriate
for water utilities who are in the early
stages of the water auditing process.
to qualify for 6 or
greater:

Finalize policy
updates to clearly
identify the types of
water consumption
that are authorized
from those usages
that fall outside of this
policy and are,
therefore,
unauthorized. Begin
to conduct regular
field checks.

Proceed if the top-
down audit already
exists and/or a great
volume of such use is
suspected.
to maintain 10:

Continue to refine policy and
procedures to eliminate any loopholes
that allow or tacitly encourage
unauthorized consumption. Continue
to be vigilant in detection,
documentation and enforcement
efforts.

Customer metering
inaccuracies:
select n/a only if the entire
customer population is
unmetered. In such a
case the volume entered
must be zero.

Customer meters exist, but with
unorganized paper records on
meters; no meter accuracy testing
or meter replacement program for
any size of retail meter. Metering
workflow is driven chaotically with
no proactive management. Loss
volume due to aggregate meter
inaccuracy is guesstimated.

Poor recordkeeping and meter
oversight is recognized by water
utility management who has allotted
staff and funding resources to
organize improved recordkeeping
and start meter accuracy testing.

Existing paper records gathered and
organized to provide cursory
disposition of meter population.

Customer meters are tested for
accuracy only upon customer
request.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Reliable recordkeeping exists; meter
information is improving as meters
are replaced. Meter accuracy
testing is conducted annually for a
small number of meters (more than
just customer requests, but less
than 1% of inventory). A limited
number of the oldest meters are
replaced each year. Inaccuracy
volume is largely an estimate, but
refined based upon limited testing
data.

Conditions between
4 and 6
A reliable electronic recordkeeping
system for meters exists. The meter
population includes a mix of new high
performing meters and dated meters
with suspect accuracy. Routine, but
limited, meter accuracy testing and
meter replacement occur. Inaccuracy
volume is quantified using a mix of
reliable and less certain data.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Ongoing meter replacement and
accuracy testing result in highly
accurate customer meter population.

Testing is conducted on samples of
meters of varying age and
accumulated volume of throughput to
determine optimum replacement time
for various types of meters.

Ongoing meter
replacement and
accuracy testing result
in highly accurate
customer meter
population.

Statistically significant
number of meters are
tested in audit year.

This testing is
conducted on
samples of meters of
varying age and
accumulated volume
of throughput to
determine optimum
replacement time for
these meters.

Good records of all active customer
meters exist and include as a minimum:
meter number, account
number/location, type, size and
manufacturer. Ongoing meter
replacement occurs according to a
targeted and justified basis. Regular
meter accuracy testing gives a reliable
measure of composite inaccuracy
volume for the customer meter
population. New metering technology
is embraced to keep overall accuracy
improving. Procedures are reviewed by
a third party knowledgeable in the M36
methodology.
to qualify for 10:

Refine written procedures to ensure that all uses of unbilled, unmetered water are overseen by a structured permitting process managed by water utility personnel. Reassess policy to determine if some of these uses have value in being
converted to billed and/or metered status.
to quality for 8:

Assess water utility policies to ensure that all known
occurrences of unauthorized consumption are outlawed,
and that appropriate penalties are prescribed. Create
written procedures for detection and documentation of
various occurrences of unauthorized consumption as they are uncovered.
to qualify for 10:

Refine written procedures and assign staff to seek out likely occurrences of unauthorized consumption. Explore new
locking devices, monitors and other technologies designed to detect and thwart unauthorized consumption.
to qualify for 5:

Utilize accepted default value of 1.25% of the volume of water supplied as an expedient means to gain a
reasonable quantification of this use.
to qualify for 4:

Evaluate the documentation of events that have been
observed. Meet with user groups (ex: for fire hydrants - fire departments, contractors to ascertain their need
and/or volume requirements for water from fire hydrants).

APPARENT LOSSES
to qualify for 5:

Use accepted default of 0.25% of system input volume
to qualify for 4:

Review utility policy regarding what water uses are
considered unauthorized, and consider tracking a small
sample of one such occurrence (ex: unauthorized fire
hydrant openings)
to qualify for 8:

Assess water utility policy and procedures for various
unmetered usages. For example, ensure that a policy
exists and permits are issued for use of fire hydrants by persons outside of the utility. Create written procedures for use and documentation of fire hydrants by water utility personnel. Use same approach for other types of unbilled, unmetered water usage.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 27 Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WATER SUPPLIED
Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Customer
meter inaccuracy volume"
component:

Gather available meter purchase
records. Conduct testing on a
small number of meters believed to
be the most inaccurate. Review
staffing needs of the metering
group and budget for necessary
resources to better organize meter
management.
to qualify for 9:

Continue efforts to manage meter
population with reliable
recordkeeping. Test a statistically
significant number of meters each
year and analyze test results in an
ongoing manner to serve as a basis
for a target meter replacement
strategy based upon accumulated
volume throughput.
to qualify for 10:

Continue efforts to
manage meter
population with reliable
recordkeeping, meter
testing and
replacement.

Evaluate new meter
types and install one
or more types in 5-10
customer accounts
each year in order to
pilot improving
metering technology.
to maintain 10:

Increase the number of meters tested
and replaced as justified by meter
accuracy test data. Continually monitor
development of new metering
technology and Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) to grasp
opportunities for greater accuracy in
metering of water flow and
management of customer consumption
data.

Systematic Data Handling
Errors:

Note: all water utilities
incur some amount of this
error. Even in water
utilities with unmetered
customer populations and
fixed rate billing, errors
occur in annual billing
tabulations. Enter a
positive value for the
volume and select a
grading.

Policies and procedures for
activation of new customer water
billing accounts are vague and lack
accountability. Billing data is
maintained on paper records which
are not well organized. No auditing
is conducted to confirm billing data
handling efficiency. An unknown
number of customers escape
routine billing due to lack of billing
process oversight.

Policy and procedures for activation
of new customer accounts and
oversight of billing records exist but
need refinement. Billing data is
maintained on paper records or
insufficiently capable electronic
database. Only periodic
unstructured auditing work is
conducted to confirm billing data
handling efficiency. The volume of
unbilled water due to billing lapses is
a guess.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Policy and procedures for new
account activation and oversight of
billing operations exist but needs
refinement. Computerized billing
system exists, but is dated or lacks
needed functionality. Periodic,
limited internal audits conducted and
confirm with approximate accuracy
the consumption volumes lost to
billing lapses.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Policy and procedures for new
account activation and oversight of
billing operations is adequate and
reviewed periodically. Computerized
billing system is in use with basic
reporting available. Any effect of
billing adjustments on measured
consumption volumes is well
understood. Internal checks of billing
data error conducted annually.

Reasonably accurate quantification of
consumption volume lost to billing
lapses is obtained.

Conditions between
6 and 8
New account activation and billing
operations policy and procedures are
reviewed at least biannually.

Computerized billing system includes
an array of reports to confirm billing
data and system functionality.

Checks are conducted routinely to
flag and explain zero consumption
accounts. Annual internal checks
conducted with third party audit
conducted at least once every five
years. Accountability checks flag
billing lapses. Consumption lost to
billing lapses is well quantified and
reducing year-by-year.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Sound written policy and procedures
exist for new account activation and
oversight of customer billing
operations. Robust computerized
billing system gives high functionality
and reporting capabilities which are
utilized, analyzed and the results
reported each billing cycle.

Assessment of policy and data
handling errors are conducted
internally and audited by third party at
least once every three years, ensuring
consumption lost to billing lapses is
minimized and detected as it occurs.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Systematic
Data Handling Error volume"
component:
to qualify for 2:

Draft written policy and procedures
for activating new water billing
accounts and oversight of billing
operations. Investigate and budget
for computerized customer billing
system. Conduct initial audit of
billing records by flow-charting the
basic business processes of the
customer account/billing function.
to maintain 10:

Stay abreast of customer information
management developments and
innovations. Monitor developments of
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
and integrate technology to ensure that
customer endpoint information is well-
monitored and errors/lapses are at an
economic minimum.

Length of mains:

Poorly assembled and maintained
paper as-built records of existing
water main installations makes
accurate determination of system
pipe length impossible. Length of
mains is guesstimated.

Paper records in poor or uncertain
condition (no annual tracking of
installations & abandonments).

Poor procedures to ensure that new
water mains installed by developers
are accurately documented.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Sound written policy and procedures
exist for documenting new water
main installations, but gaps in
management result in a uncertain
degree of error in tabulation of mains
length.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Sound written policy and procedures
exist for permitting and commissioning
new water mains. Highly accurate
paper records with regular field
validation; or electronic records and
asset management system in good
condition. Includes system backup.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Sound written policy and procedures
exist for permitting and
commissioning new water mains.

Electronic recordkeeping such as a
Geographical Information System
(GIS) and asset management system
are used to store and manage data.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Sound written policy exists for
managing water mains extensions and
replacements. Geographic Information
System (GIS) data and asset
management database agree and
random field validation proves truth of
databases. Records of annual field
validation should be available for
review.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Length of
Water Mains" component:
to qualify for 2:

Assign personnel to inventory
current as-built records and
compare with customer billing
system records and highway plans
in order to verify poorly documented
pipelines. Assemble policy
documents regarding permitting
and documentation of water main
installations by the utility and
building developers; identify gaps in
procedures that result in poor
documentation of new water main
installations.
to maintain 10:

Continue with standardization and
random field validation to improve the
completeness and accuracy of the
system.
to qualify for 4:

Implement a reliable record keeping system for customer meter histories, preferably using electronic methods
typically linked to, or part of, the Customer Billing System or Customer Information System. Expand meter
accuracy testing to a larger group of meters.
to qualify for 6:

Standardize the procedures for meter recordkeeping within an electronic information system. Accelerate meter
accuracy testing and meter replacements guided by testing results.
to qualify for 8:

Expand annual meter accuracy testing to evaluate a
statistically significant number of meter makes/models.

Expand meter replacement program to replace statistically significant number of poor performing meters each year. to qualify for 10:

Close policy/procedure loopholes that allow some customer accounts to go unbilled, or data handling errors to exist.

Ensure that billing system reports are utilized, analyzed and reported every billing cycle. Ensure that internal and third party audits are conducted at least once every three years. to qualify for 4:

Finalize written policy and procedures for activation of new billing acocunts and overall billing operations
management. Implement a computerized customer billing
system. Conduct initial audit of billing records as part of this process.
to qualify for 6:

Refine new account activation and billing operations
procedures and ensure consistency with the utility policy regarding billing, and minimize opportunity for missed
billings. Upgrade or replace customer billing system for needed functionality - ensure that billing adjustments don't corrupt the value of consumption volumes. Procedurize
internal annual audit process.
to qualify for 8:

Formalize regular review of new account activation process and general billing practices. Enhance reporting capability of computerized billing system. Formalize regular auditing process to reveal scope of data handling error. Plan for periodic third party audit to occur at least once every five years.
to qualify for 8:

Launch random field checks of limited number of locations.

Convert to electronic database such as a Geographic
Information System (GIS) with backup as justified. Develop written policy and procedures.
to qualify for 10:

Link Geographic Information System (GIS) and asset
management databases, conduct field verification of data.

Record field verification information at least annually. to qualify for 6:

Finalize updates/improvements to written policy and
procedures for permitting/commissioning new main
installations. Confirm inventory of records for five years prior to audit year; correct any errors or omissions.
to qualify for 4:

Complete inventory of paper records of water main
installations for several years prior to audit year. Review policy and procedures for commissioning and
documenting new water main installation.

SYSTEM DATA
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 28 Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WATER SUPPLIED
Number of active AND inactive
service connections:

Vague permitting (of new service
connections) policy and poor paper
recordkeeping of customer
connections/billings result in
suspect determination of the
number of service connections,
which may be 10-15% in error from
actual count.

General permitting policy exists but
paper records, procedural gaps, and
weak oversight result in
questionable total for number of
connections, which may vary 5-10%
of actual count.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Written account activation policy and
procedures exist, but with some
gaps in performance and oversight.

Computerized information
management system is being
brought online to replace dated
paper recordkeeping system.

Reasonably accurate tracking of
service connection installations &
abandonments; but count can be up
to 5% in error from actual total.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Written new account activation and
overall billing policies and procedures
are adequate and reviewed
periodically. Computerized
information management system is in
use with annual installations &
abandonments totaled. Very limited
field verifications and audits. Error in
count of number of service
connections is believed to be no more
than 3%.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Policies and procedures for new
account activation and overall billing
operations are written, well-structured
and reviewed at least biannually. Well-
managed computerized information
management system exists and
routine, periodic field checks and
internal system audits are conducted.

Counts of connections are no more
than 2% in error.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Sound written policy and well managed
and audited procedures ensure reliable
management of service connection
population. Computerized information
management system, Customer Billing
System, and Geographic Information
System (GIS) information agree; field
validation proves truth of databases.

Count of connections recorded as
being in error is less than 1% of the
entire population.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Number of
Active and Inactive Service
Connections" component:

Note: The number of
Service Connections
does not include fire
hydrant leads/lines
connecting the hydrant
to the water main
to qualify for 2:

Draft new policy and procedures for
new account activation and overall
billing operations. Research and
collect paper records of installations
& abandonments for several years
prior to audit year.
to maintain 10:

Continue with standardization and
random field validation to improve
knowledge of system.

Vague policy exists to define the
delineation of water utility ownership
and customer ownership of the
service connection piping. Curb
stops are perceived as the
breakpoint but these have not been
well-maintained or documented.

Most are buried or obscured. Their
location varies widely from site-to-
site, and estimating this distance is
arbitrary due to the unknown
location of many curb stops.

Policy requires that the curb stop
serves as the delineation point
between water utility ownership and
customer ownership of the service
connection piping. The piping from
the water main to the curb stop is
the property of the water utility; and
the piping from the curb stop to the
customer building is owned by the
customer. Curb stop locations are
not well documented and the
average distance is based upon a
limited number of locations
measured in the field.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Good policy requires that the curb
stop serves as the delineation point
between water utility ownership and
customer ownership of the service
connection piping. Curb stops are
generally installed as needed and
are reasonably documented. Their
location varies widely from site-to-
site, and an estimate of this distance
is hindered by the availability of
paper records of limited accuracy.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Clear written policy exists to define
utility/customer responsibility for
service connection piping. Accurate,
well-maintained paper or basic
electronic recordkeeping system
exists. Periodic field checks confirm
piping lengths for a sample of
customer properties.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Clearly worded policy standardizes
the location of curb stops and meters,
which are inspected upon installation.

Accurate and well maintained
electronic records exist with periodic
field checks to confirm locations of
service lines, curb stops and
customer meter pits. An accurate
number of customer properties from
the customer billing system allows for
reliable averaging of this length.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Average
Length of Customer Service
Line" component:
to qualify for 2:

Research and collect paper records
of service line installations. Inspect
several sites in the field using pipe
locators to locate curb stops.

Obtain the length of this small
sample of connections in this
manner.
to maintain 10:

Continue with standardization and
random field validation to improve
knowledge of service connection
configurations and customer meter
locations.

Average operating pressure:

Available records are poorly
assembled and maintained paper
records of supply pump
characteristics and water
distribution system operating
conditions. Average pressure is
guesstimated based upon this
information and ground elevations
from crude topographical maps.

Widely varying distribution system
pressures due to undulating terrain,
high system head loss and
weak/erratic pressure controls
further compromise the validity of
the average pressure calculation.

Limited telemetry monitoring of
scattered pumping station and water
storage tank sites provides some
static pressure data, which is
recorded in handwritten logbooks.

Pressure data is gathered at
individual sites only when low
pressure complaints arise. Average
pressure is determined by averaging
relatively crude data, and is affected
by significant variation in ground
elevations, system head loss and
gaps in pressure controls in the
distribution system.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Effective pressure controls separate
different pressure zones; moderate
pressure variation across the
system, occasional open boundary
valves are discovered that breech
pressure zones. Basic telemetry
monitoring of the distribution system
logs pressure data electronically.

Pressure data gathered by gauges
or dataloggers at fire hydrants or
buildings when low pressure
complaints arise, and during fire flow
tests and system flushing. Reliable
topographical data exists. Average
pressure is calculated using this mix
of data.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Reliable pressure controls separate
distinct pressure zones; only very
occasional open boundary valves are
encountered that breech pressure
zones. Well-covered telemetry
monitoring of the distribution system
(not just pumping at source treatment
plants or wells) logs extensive
pressure data electronically. Pressure
gathered by gauges/dataloggers at
fire hydrants and buildings when low
pressure complaints arise, and during
fire flow tests and system flushing.

Average pressure is determined by
using this mix of reliable data.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Well-managed, discrete pressure
zones exist with generally predictable
pressure fluctuations. A current full-
scale SCADA System or similar
realtime monitoring system exists to
monitor the water distribution system
and collect data, including real time
pressure readings at representative
sites across the system. The average
system pressure is determined from
reliable monitoring system data.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Well-managed pressure districts/zones,
SCADA System and hydraulic model
exist to give very precise pressure data
across the water distribution system.

Average system pressure is reliably
calculated from extensive, reliable, and
cross-checked data. Calculations are
reported on an annual basis as a
minimum.

Note: if customer water
meters are located
outside of the customer
building next to the curb
stop or boundary
separating utility/customer
responsibility, then the
auditor should answer
"Yes" to the question on
the Reporting Worksheet
asking about this. If the
answer is Yes, the
grading description listed
under the Grading of
10(a) will be followed,
with a value of zero
automatically entered at a
Grading of 10. See the
Service Connection
Diagram worksheet for a
visual presentation of this
distance.
to qualify for 4:

Formalize and communicate policy delineating
utility/customer responsibilities for service connection piping. Assess accuracy of paper records by field
inspection of a small sample of service connections using pipe locators as needed. Research the potential
migration to a computerized information management
system to store service connection data.
to qualify for 10:

Link customer information management system and
Geographic Information System (GIS), standardize process for field verification of data.
to qualify for 6:

Establish coherent procedures to ensure that policy for curb stop, meter installation and documentation is followed.

Gain consensus within the water utility for the establishment of a computerized information management system.
to qualify for 8:

Implement an electronic means of recordkeeping, typically via a customer information system, customer billing system, or Geographic Information System (GIS). Standardize the process to conduct field checks of a limited number of
locations.

Gradings 1-9 apply if customer properties are unmetered, if customer meters exist and are located inside the customer building premises, or if the water utility owns and is responsible for the entire service connection piping from the water main to the customer building. In any of these cases the average distance between the curb stop or boundary separating utility/customer responsibility for service connection piping, and the typical first point of use (ex: faucet) or the customer meter must be quantified. Gradings of 1-9 are used to grade the validity of the means to quantify this value. (See the "Service Connection Diagram" worksheet) to qualify for 8:

Formalize regular review of new account activation and
overall billing operations policies and procedures. Launch random field checks of limited number of locations.

Develop reports and auditing mechanisms for
computerized information management system.
to qualify for 10:

Close any procedural loopholes that allow installations to go undocumented. Link computerized information management system with Geographic Information System (GIS) and
formalize field inspection and information system auditing processes. Documentation of new or decommissioned
service connections encounters several levels of checks and balances.
to qualify for 4:

Refine policy and procedures for new account activation and overall billing operations. Research computerized
recordkeeping system (Customer Information System or
Customer Billing System) to improve documentation
format for service connections.
to qualify for 6:

Refine procedures to ensure consistency with new account activation and overall billing policy to establish new service connections or decommission existing connections.

Improve process to include all totals for at least five years prior to audit year.

Either of two conditions can be met for
a grading of 10:
a) Customer water meters exist outside
of customer buildings next to the curb
stop or boundary separating
utility/customer responsibility for service
connection piping. If so, answer "Yes"
to the question on the Reporting
Working asking about this condition. A
value of zero and a Grading of 10 are
automatically entered in the Reporting
Worksheet .
b). Meters exist inside customer
buildings, or properties are unmetered.

In either case, answer "No" to the
Reporting Worksheet question on
meter location, and enter a distance
determined by the auditor. For a
Grading of 10 this value must be a very
reliable number from a Geographic
Information System (GIS) and
confirmed by a statistically valid number
of field checks.

Average length of customer
service line:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 29 Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WATER SUPPLIED
Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Average
Operating Pressure"
component:
to qualify for 2:

Employ pressure gauging and/or
datalogging equipment to obtain
pressure measurements from fire
hydrants. Locate accurate
topographical maps of service area
in order to confirm ground
elevations. Research pump data
sheets to find pump pressure/flow
characteristics
to maintain 10:

Continue to refine the hydraulic model
of the distribution system and consider
linking it with SCADA System for real-
time pressure data calibration, and
averaging.
to qualify for 4:

Formalize a procedure to use pressure
gauging/datalogging equipment to gather pressure data
during various system events such as low pressure
complaints, or operational testing. Gather pump pressure and flow data at different flow regimes. Identify faulty pressure controls (pressure reducing valves, altitude
valves, partially open boundary valves) and plan to
properly configure pressure zones. Make all pressure
data from these efforts available to generate system-wide average pressure.
to qualify for 6:

Expand the use of pressure gauging/datalogging
equipment to gather scattered pressure data at a
representative set of sites, based upon pressure zones or areas. Utilize pump pressure and flow data to determine supply head entering each pressure zone or district.

Correct any faulty pressure controls (pressure reducing valves, altitude valves, partially open boundary valves) to ensure properly configured pressure zones. Use expanded pressure dataset from these activities to generate system- wide average pressure.
to qualify for 8:

Install a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System, or similar realtime monitoring system, to monitor system parameters and control operations. Set regular
calibration schedule for instrumentation to insure data accuracy. Obtain accurate topographical data and utilize pressure data gathered from field surveys to provide
extensive, reliable data for pressure averaging.
to qualify for 10:

Annually, obtain a system-wide average pressure value from the hydraulic model of the distribution system that has been calibrated via field measurements in the water distribution system and confirmed in comparisons with SCADA System
data.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 30 Grading >>> n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WATER SUPPLIED
Total annual cost of operating
water system:

Incomplete paper records and lack
of financial accounting
documentation on many operating
functions makes calculation of
water system operating costs a
pure guesstimate
Reasonably maintained, but
incomplete, paper or electronic
accounting provides data to
estimate the major portion of water
system operating costs.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Electronic, industry-standard cost
accounting system in place.

However, gaps in data are known to
exist, periodic internal reviews are
conducted but not a structured
financial audit.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Reliable electronic, industry-standard
cost accounting system in place, with
all pertinent water system operating
costs tracked. Data audited
periodically by utility personnel, but not
a Certified Public Accountant (CPA).

Conditions between
6 and 8
Reliable electronic, industry-standard
cost accounting system in place, with
all pertinent water system operating
costs tracked. Data audited at least
annually by utility personnel, and at
least once every three years by third-
party CPA.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Reliable electronic, industry-standard
cost accounting system in place, with
all pertinent water system operating
costs tracked. Data audited annually
by utility personnel and annually also by
third-party CPA.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Total Annual
Cost of Operating the Water
System" component:
to qualify for 2:

Gather available records, institute
new financial accounting
procedures to regularly collect and
audit basic cost data of most
important operations functions.
to maintain 10:

Maintain program, stay abreast of
expenses subject to erratic cost
changes and long-term cost trend, and
budget/track costs proactively
Customer retail unit cost
(applied to Apparent Losses):

Customer population
unmetered, and/or only a
fixed fee is charged for
consumption.

Antiquated, cumbersome water rate
structure is used, with periodic
historic amendments that were
poorly documented and
implemented; resulting in classes of
customers being billed inconsistent
charges. The actual composite
billing rate likely differs significantly
from the published water rate
structure, but a lack of auditing
leaves the degree of error
indeterminate.

Dated, cumbersome water rate
structure, not always employed
consistently in actual billing
operations. The actual composite
billing rate is known to differ from the
published water rate structure, and a
reasonably accurate estimate of the
degree of error is determined,
allowing a composite billing rate to
be quantified.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Straight-forward water rate structure
in use, but not updated in several
years. Billing operations reliably
employ the rate structure. The
composite billing rate is derived from
a single customer class such as
residential customer accounts,
neglecting the effect of different
rates from varying customer classes.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Clearly written, up-to-date water rate
structure is in force and is applied
reliably in billing operations.

Composite customer rate is
determined using a weighted average
residential rate using volumes of water
in each rate block.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Effective water rate structure is in
force and is applied reliably in billing
operations. Composite customer rate
is determined using a weighted
average composite consumption rate,
which includes residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional
(CII), and any other distinct customer
classes within the water rate
structure.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Current, effective water rate structure is
in force and applied reliably in billing
operations. The rate structure and
calculations of composite rate - which
includes residential, commercial,
industrial, institutional (CII), and other
distinct customer classes - are
reviewed by a third party
knowledgeable in the M36
methodology at least once every five
years.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Customer
Retail Unit Cost" component:
to qualify for 2:

Formalize the process to implement
water rates, including a secure
documentation procedure. Create
a current, formal water rate
document and gain approval from
all stakeholders.
to qualify for 6:

Evaluate volume of water used in
each usage block by residential
users. Multiply volumes by full rate
structure.

Launch effort to fully
meter the customer
population and
charge rates based
upon water volumes
to maintain 10:

Keep water rate structure current in
addressing the water utility's revenue
needs. Update the calculation of the
customer unit rate as new rate
components, customer classes, or
other components are modified.

Variable production cost
(applied to Real Losses):

Note: if the water utility
purchases/imports its
entire water supply, then
enter the unit purchase
cost of the bulk water
supply in the Reporting
Worksheet with a grading
of 10
Incomplete paper records and lack
of documentation on primary
operating functions (electric power
and treatment costs most
importantly) makes calculation of
variable production costs a pure
guesstimate
Reasonably maintained, but
incomplete, paper or electronic
accounting provides data to roughly
estimate the basic operations costs
(pumping power costs and
treatment costs) and calculate a unit
variable production cost.

Conditions between
2 and 4
Electronic, industry-standard cost
accounting system in place. Electric
power and treatment costs are
reliably tracked and allow accurate
weighted calculation of unit variable
production costs based on these
two inputs and water imported
purchase costs (if applicable). All
costs are audited internally on a
periodic basis.

Conditions between
4 and 6
Reliable electronic, industry-standard
cost accounting system in place, with
all pertinent water system operating
costs tracked. Pertinent additional
costs beyond power, treatment and
water imported purchase costs (if
applicable) such as liability, residuals
management, wear and tear on
equipment, impending expansion of
supply, are included in the unit
variable production cost, as
applicable. The data is audited at
least annually by utility personnel.

Conditions between
6 and 8
Reliable electronic, industry-standard
cost accounting system in place, with
all pertinent primary and secondary
variable production and water
imported purchase (if applicable)
costs tracked. The data is audited at
least annually by utility personnel, and
at least once every three years by a
third-party knowledgeable in the M36
methodology.

Conditions between
8 and 10
Either of two conditions can be met to
obtain a grading of 10:
1) Third party CPA audit of all pertinent
primary and secondary variable
production and water imported
purchase (if applicable) costs on an
annual basis.
or:
2) Water supply is entirely purchased
as bulk water imported, and the unit
purchase cost - including all applicable
marginal supply costs - serves as the
variable production cost. If all
applicable marginal supply costs are
not included in this figure, a grade of
10 should not be selected.

Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Variable
Production Cost" component:
to qualify for 2:

Gather available records, institute
new procedures to regularly collect
and audit basic cost data and most
important operations functions.
to maintain 10:

Maintain program, stay abreast of
expenses subject to erratic cost
changes and budget/track costs
proactively
to qualify for 6:

Formalize process for regular internal audits of production costs. Assess whether additional costs (liability, residuals management, equipment wear, impending infrastructure
expansion) should be included to calculate a more
representative variable production cost.
to qualify for 8:

Formalize the accounting process to include direct cost components (power, treatment) as well as indirect cost
components (liability, residuals management, etc.) Arrange to conduct audits by a knowledgable third-party at least once every three years.
to qualify for 10:

Standardize the process to conduct a third-party financial audit by a CPA on an annual basis.
to qualify for 4:

Implement an electronic cost accounting system,
structured according to accounting standards for water
utilities
to qualify for 4:

Review the water rate structure and update/formalize as needed. Assess billing operations to ensure that actual billing operations incorporate the established water rate structure.
to qualify for 8:

Evaluate volume of water used in each usage block by all classifications of users. Multiply volumes by full rate structure.
to qualify for 10:

Conduct a periodic third-party audit of water used in each usage block by all classifications of users. Multiply volumes by full rate structure.
to qualify for 4:

Implement an electronic cost accounting system,
structured according to accounting standards for water
utilities
to qualify for 10:

Standardize the process to conduct a third-party financial audit by a CPA on an annual basis.

COST DATA
to qualify for 6:

Establish process for periodic internal audit of water system operating costs; identify cost data gaps and institute
procedures for tracking these outstanding costs.
to qualify for 8:

Standardize the process to conduct routine financial audit on an annual basis. Arrange for CPA audit of financial records at least once every three years.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Grading Matrix 31 AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Customer Service Line Diagrams
Average Length of Customer
Service Line
The three figures shown on this
worksheet display the
assignment of the Average
Length of Customer Service
Line, Lp, for the three most
common piping configurations.

Figure 1 shows the
configuration of the water meter
outside of the customer building
next to the curb stop valve. In
this configuration Lp = 0 since
the distance between the curb
stop and the customer metering
point is essentially zero.

Figure 2 shows the
configuration of the customer
water meter located inside the
customer building, where Lp is
the distance from the curb stop
to the water meter.

Figure 3 shows the
configuration of an unmetered
customer building , where Lp is
the distance from the curb stop
to the first point of customer
water consumption, or, more
simply, the building line.

In any water system the Lp will
vary notably in a community of
different structures, therefore
the average Lp value is used
and this should be approximated
or calculated if a sample of
service line measurements has
been gathered.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
American Water Works Association.

Copyright © 2014, All Rights
WAS
Click for more
information
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Service Connection Diagram 32 Item Name
Apparent
Losses

AUTHORIZED

CONSUMPTION
Average length of
customer service
line
Average
operating
pressure
Billed Authorized
Consumption
Billed metered
consumption
Billed unmetered
consumption
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Definitions
Description
= billed water exported + billed metered + billed unmetered + unbilled metered + unbilled unmetered consumption The volume of metered and/or unmetered water taken by registered customers, the water utility's own uses, and uses of others who are implicitly or explicitly authorized to do so by the water utility; for residential, commercial, industrial and public-minded purposes.

Typical retail customers' consumption is tabulated usually from established customer accounts as billed metered consumption, or - for unmetered customers - billed unmetered consumption. These types of consumption, along with billed water exported, provide revenue potential for the water utility. Be certain to tabulate the water exported volume as a separate component and do not "double-count" it by including in the billed metered consumption component as well as the water exported component.

Unbilled authorized consumption occurs typically in non-account uses, including water for fire fighting and training, flushing of water mains and sewers, street cleaning, watering of municipal gardens, public fountains, or similar public-minded uses. Occasionally these uses may be metered and billed (or charged a flat fee), but usually they are unmetered and unbilled. In the latter case, the water auditor may use a default value to estimate this quantity, or implement procedures for the reliable quantification of these uses. This starts with documenting usage events as they occur and estimating the amount of water used in each event. (See Unbilled unmetered consumption)
This is the average length of customer service line, Lp, that is owned and maintained by the customer; from the point of ownership transfer to the customer water meter, or building line (if unmetered). The quantity is one of the data inputs for the calculation of Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL), which serves as the denominator of the performance indicator: Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI). The value of Lp is multiplied by the number of customer service connections to obtain a total length of customer owned piping in the system. The purpose of this parameter is to account for the unmetered service line infrastructure that is the responsibility of the customer for arranging repairs of leaks that occur on their lines. In many cases leak repairs arranged by customers take longer to be executed than leak repairs arranged by the water utility on utility-maintained piping. Leaks run longer - and lose more water - on customer- owned service piping, than utility owned piping.

If the customer water meter exists near the ownership transfer point (usually the curb stop located between the water main and the customer premises) this distance is zero because the meter and transfer point are the same. This is the often encountered configuration of customer water meters located in an underground meter box or "pit" outside of the customer's building. The Free Water Audit Software asks a "Yes/No" question about the meter at this location. If the auditor selects "Yes" then this distance is set to zero and the data grading score for this component is set to 10.

If water meters are typically located inside the customer premise/building, or properties are unmetered, it is up to the water auditor to estimate a system-wide average Lp length based upon the various customer land parcel sizes and building locations in the service area. Lp will be a shorter length in areas of high density housing, and a longer length in areas of low density housing and varied commercial and industrial buildings. General parcel demographics should be employed to obtain a composite average Lp length for the entire system.

Refer to the "Service Connection Diagram" worksheet for a depiction of the service line/metering configurations that typically exist in water utilities. This worksheet gives guidance on the determination of the Average Length, Lp, for each configuration.

This is the average pressure in the distribution system that is the subject of the water audit. Many water utilities have a calibrated hydraulic model of their water distribution system. For these utilities, the hydraulic model can be utilized to obtain a very accurate quantity of average pressure. In the absence of a hydraulic model, the average pressure may be approximated by obtaining readings of static water pressure from a representative sample of fire hydrants or other system access points evenly located across the system. A weighted average of the pressure can be assembled; but be sure to take into account the elevation of the fire hydrants, which typically exist several feet higher than the level of buried water pipelines. If the water utility is compiling the water audit for the first time, the average pressure can be approximated, but with a low data grading. In subsequent years of auditing, effort should be made to improve the accuracy of the average pressure quantity. This will then qualify the value for a higher data grading. = unauthorized consumption + customer metering inaccuracies + systematic data handling errors Apparent Losses include all types of inaccuracies associated with customer metering (worn meters as well as improperly sized meters or wrong type of meter for the water usage profile) as well as systematic data handling errors (meter reading, billing, archiving and reporting), plus unauthorized consumption (theft or illegal use).

NOTE: Over-estimation of Apparent Losses results in under-estimation of Real Losses. Under-estimation of Apparent Losses results in over-estimation of Real Losses.

All consumption that is billed and authorized by the utility. This may include both metered and unmetered consumption. See "Authorized Consumption" for more information.

All metered consumption which is billed to retail customers, including all groups of customers such as domestic, commercial, industrial or institutional. It does NOT include water supplied to neighboring utilities (water exported) which is metered and billed. Be sure to subtract any consumption for exported water sales that may be included in these billing roles. Water supplied as exports to neighboring water utilities should be included only in the Water Exported component. The metered consumption data can be taken directly from billing records for the water audit period. The accuracy of yearly metered consumption data can be refined by including an adjustment to account for customer meter reading lag time since not all customer meters are read on the same day of the meter reading period. However additional analysis is necessary to determine the lag time adjustment value, which may or may not be significant.

All billed consumption which is calculated based on estimates or norms from water usage sites that have been determined by utility policy to be left unmetered.

This is typically a very small component in systems that maintain a policy to meter their customer population. However, this quantity can be the key consumption component in utilities that have not adopted a universal metering policy. This component should NOT include any water that is supplied to neighboring utilities (water exported) which is unmetered but billed. Water supplied as exports to neighboring water utilities should be included only in the Water Exported component.

A
WAS v5.0
American Water Works Association.

Find
Find
Find
Find
View
Service
Connection
Diagram
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Definitions 33
Item Name Description
Customer
metering
inaccuracies
Customer retail
unit cost
Infrastructure
Leakage Index
(ILI)
Length of mains

NON-REVENUE
WATER
Number of active
AND inactive
service
connections
Real Losses
Revenue Water
Service
Connection
Density =number of customer service connections / length of mains Length of all pipelines (except service connections) in the system starting from the point of system input metering (for example at the outlet of the treatment plant). It is also recommended to include in this measure the total length of fire hydrant lead pipe. Hydrant lead pipe is the pipe branching from the water main to the fire hydrant. Fire hydrant leads are typically of a sufficiently large size that is more representative of a pipeline than a service connection. The average length of hydrant leads across the entire system can be assumed if not known, and multiplied by the number of fire hydrants in the system, which can also be assumed if not known. This value can then be added to the total pipeline length. Total length of mains can therefore be calculated as:

Length of Mains, miles = (total pipeline length, miles) + [ {(average fire hydrant lead length, ft) x (number of fire hydrants)} / 5,280 ft/mile ] or
Length of Mains, kilometres = (total pipeline length, kilometres) + [ {(average fire hydrant lead length, metres) x (number of fire hydrants)} / 1,000 metres/kilometre ]
Those components of System Input Volume that are billed and have the potential to produce revenue.

Number of customer service connections, extending from the water main to supply water to a customer. Please note that this includes the actual number of distinct piping connections, including fire connections, whether active or inactive. This may differ substantially from the number of customers (or number of accounts). Note: this number does not include the pipeline leads to fire hydrants - the total length of piping supplying fire hyrants should be included in the "Length of mains" parameter.

Apparent water losses caused by the collective under-registration of customer water meters. Many customer water meters gradually wear as large cumulative volumes of water are passed through them over time. This causes the meters to under-register the flow of water. This occurrence is common with smaller residential meters of sizes 5/8-inch and 3/4 inch after they have registered very large cumulative volumes of water, which generally occurs only after periods of years. For meters sized 1-inch and larger - typical of multi-unit residential, commercial and industrial accounts - meter under-registration can occur from wear or from the improper application of the meter; i.e. installing the wrong type of meter or the wrong size of meter, for the flow pattern (profile) of the consumer.

For instance, many larger meters have reduced accuracy at low flows. If an oversized meter is installed, most of the time the routine flow will occur in the low flow range of the meter, and a significant portion of it may not be registered. It is important to properly select and install all meters, but particularly large customer meters, size 1-inch and larger.

The auditor has two options for entering data for this component of the audit. The auditor can enter a percentage under-registration (typically an estimated value), this will apply the selected percentage to the two categories of metered consumption to determine the volume of water not recorded due to customer meter inaccuracy. Note that this percentage is a composite average inaccuracy for all customer meters in the entire meter population. The percentage will be multiplied by the sum of the volumes in the Billed Metered and Unbilled Metered components. Alternatively, if the auditor has substantial data from meter testing activities, he or she can calculate their own loss volumes, and this volume may be entered directly.

Note that a value of zero will be accepted but an alert will appear asking if the customer population is unmetered. Since all metered systems have some degree of inaccuracy, a positive value should be entered. A value of zero in this component is valid only if the water utility does not meter its customer population.

The Customer Retail Unit Cost represents the charge that customers pay for water service. This unit cost is applied routinely to the components of Apparent Loss, since these losses represent water reaching customers but not (fully) paid for. Since most water utilities have a rate structure that includes a variety of different costs based upon class of customer, a weighted average of individual costs and number of customer accounts in each class can be calculated to determine a single composite cost that should be entered into this cell. Finally, the weighted average cost should also include additional charges for sewer, storm water or biosolids processing, but only if these charges are based upon the volume of potable water consumed.

For water utilities in regions with limited water resources and a questionable ability to meet the drinking water demands in the future, the Customer Retail Unit Cost might also be applied to value the Real Losses; instead of applying the Variable Production Cost to Real Losses. In this way, it is assumed that every unit volume of leakage reduced by leakage management activities will be sold to a customer.

Note: the Free Water Audit Software allows the user to select the units that are charged to customers (either $/1,000 gallons, $/hundred cubic feet, or $/1,000 litres) and automatically converts these units to the units that appear in the "WATER SUPPLIED" box. The monetary units are United States dollars, $.

The ratio of the Current Annual Real Losses (Real Losses) to the Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). The ILI is a highly effective performance indicator for comparing (benchmarking) the performance of utilities in operational management of real losses.

Physical water losses from the pressurized system (water mains and customer service connections) and the utility’s storage tanks, up to the point of customer consumption. In metered systems this is the customer meter, in unmetered situations this is the first point of consumption (stop tap/tap) within the property.

The annual volume lost through all types of leaks, breaks and overflows depends on frequencies, flow rates, and average duration of individual leaks, breaks and overflows.
= Apparent Losses + Real Losses + Unbilled Metered Consumption + Unbilled Unmetered Consumption. This is water which does not provide revenue potential to the utility.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Definitions 34
Item Name Description
Systematic data
handling errors
Total annual cost
of operating the
water system
Unauthorized
consumption
Apparent losses caused by accounting omissions, errant computer programming, gaps in policy, procedure, and permitting/activation of new accounts; and any type of data lapse that results in under-stated customer water consumption in summary billing reports.

Systematic Data Handling Errors result in a direct loss of revenue potential. Water utilities can find "lost" revenue by keying on this component.

Utilities typically measure water consumption registered by water meters at customer premises. The meter should be read routinely (ex: monthly) and the data transferred to the Customer Billing System, which generates and sends a bill to the customer. Data Transfer Errors result in the consumption value being less than the actual consumption, creating an apparent loss. Such error might occur from illegible and mis-recorded hand-written readings compiled by meter readers, inputting an incorrect meter register unit conversion factor in the automatic meter reading equipment, or a variety of similar errors.

Close auditing of the permitting, metering, meter reading, billing and reporting processes of the water consumption data trail can uncover data management gaps that create volumes of systematic data handling error. Utilities should routinely analyze customer billing records to detect data anomalies and quantify these losses. For example, a billing account that registers zero consumption for two or more billing cycles should be checked to explain why usage has seemingly halted. Given the revenue loss impacts of these losses, water utilities are well-justified in providing continuous oversight and timely correction of data transfer errors & data handling errors.

If the water auditor has not yet gathered detailed data or assessment of systematic data handling error, it is recommended that the auditor apply the default value of 0.25% of the the Billed Authorized Consumption volume. However, if the auditor has investigated the billing system and its controls, and has well validated data that indicates the volume from systematic data handling error is substantially higher or lower than that generated by the default value, then the auditor should enter a quantity that was derived from the utility investigations and select an appropriate grading. Note: negative values are not allowed for this audit component. If the auditor enters zero for this component then a grading of 1 will be automatically assigned.

Includes water illegally withdrawn from fire hydrants, illegal connections, bypasses to customer consumption meters, or tampering with metering or meter reading equipment; as well as any other ways to receive water while thwarting the water utility's ability to collect revenue for the water. Unauthorized consumption results in uncaptured revenue and creates an error that understates customer consumption. In most water utilities this volume is low and, if the water auditor has not yet gathered detailed data for these loss occurrences, it is recommended that the auditor apply a default value of 0.25% of the volume of water supplied. However, if the auditor has investigated unauthorized occurrences, and has well validated data that indicates the volume from unauthorized consumption is substantially higher or lower than that generated by the default value, then the auditor should enter a quantity that was derived from the utility investigations. Note that a value of zero will not be accepted since all water utilities have some volume of unauthorized consumption occurring in their system.

Note: if the auditor selects the default value for unauthorized consumption, a data grading of 5 is automatically assigned, but not displayed on the Reporting Worksheet.

These costs include those for operations, maintenance and any annually incurred costs for long-term upkeep of the drinking water supply and distribution system. It should include the costs of day-to-day upkeep and long-term financing such as repayment of capital bonds for infrastructure expansion or improvement. Typical costs include employee salaries and benefits, materials, equipment, insurance, fees, administrative costs and all other costs that exist to sustain the drinking water supply. Depending upon water utility accounting procedures or regulatory agency requirements, it may be appropriate to include depreciation in the total of this cost. This cost should not include any costs to operate wastewater, biosolids or other systems outside of drinking water.

Unavoidable
Annual Real
Losses (UARL)
UARL (gallons)=(5.41Lm + 0.15Nc + 7.5Lc) xP,
or
UARL (litres)=(18.0Lm + 0.8Nc + 25.0Lc) xP
where:

Lm = length of mains (miles or kilometres)
Nc = number of customer service connections
Lp = the average distance of customer service connection piping (feet or metres) (see the Worksheet "Service Connection Diagram" for guidance on deterring the value of Lp) Lc = total length of customer service connection piping (miles or km) Lc = Nc X Lp (miles or kilometres)
P = Pressure (psi or metres)
The UARL is a theoretical reference value representing the technical low limit of leakage that could be achieved if all of today's best technology could be successfully applied. It is a key variable in the calculation of the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI). Striving to reduce system leakage to a level close to the UARL is usually not needed unless the water supply is unusually expensive, scarce or both.

NOTE: The UARL calculation has not yet been proven as fully valid for very small, or low pressure water distribution systems. If, in gallons:
(Lm x 32) + Nc < 3000 or
P <35psi
in litres:
(Lm x 20) + Nc < 3000 or
P < 25m
then the calculated UARL value may not be valid. The software does not display a value of UARL or ILI if either of these conditions is true.

Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Definitions 35
Item Name Description
Unbilled
Authorized
Consumption
Unbilled metered
consumption
Unbilled
unmetered
consumption
Convert From…
Million Gallons (US) = 3.06888329 Acre-feet
Use of Option
Buttons
Variable
production cost
(applied to Real
Losses)
Volume from own
sources
Any kind of Authorized Consumption which is neither billed or metered. This component typically includes water used in activities such as fire fighting, flushing of water mains and sewers, street cleaning, fire flow tests conducted by the water utility, etc. In most water utilities it is a small component which is very often substantially overestimated. It does NOT include water supplied to neighboring utilities (water exported) which is unmetered and unbilled – an unlikely case. This component has many sub-components of water use which are often tedious to identify and quantify. Because of this, and the fact that it is usually a small portion of the water supplied, it is recommended that the auditor apply the default value, which is 1.25% of the Water Supplied volume. Select the default percentage to enter this value.

If the water utility has carefully audited the unbilled, unmetered activities occurring in the system, and has well validated data that gives a value substantially higher or lower than the default volume, then the auditor should enter their own volume. However the default approach is recommended for most water utilities.

Note that a value of zero is not permitted, since all water utilities have some volume of water in this component occurring in their system.

The user may develop an audit based on one of three unit selections:
1) Million Gallons (US)
2) Megalitres (Thousand Cubic Metres)
3) Acre-feet
Once this selection has been made in the instructions sheet, all calculations are made on the basis of the chosen units. Should the user wish to make additional conversions, a unit converter is provided below (use drop down menus to select units from the yellow unit boxes):

Enter Units:

Units and
Conversions
All consumption that is unbilled, but still authorized by the utility. This includes Unbilled Metered Consumption + Unbilled Unmetered Consumption. See "Authorized Consumption" for more information. For Unbilled Unmetered Consumption, the Free Water Audit Software provides the auditor the option to select a default value if they have not audited unmetered activities in detail. The default calculates a volume that is 1.25% of the Water Supplied volume. If the auditor has carefully audited the various unbilled, unmetered, authorized uses of water, and has established reliable estimates of this collective volume, then he or she may enter the volume directly for this component, and not use the default value. (conversion factor = 3.06888328973723)
Metered consumption which is authorized by the water utility, but, for any reason, is deemed by utility policy to be unbilled. This might for example include metered water consumed by the utility itself in treatment or distribution operations, or metered water provided to civic institutions free of charge. It does not include water supplied to neighboring utilities (water exported) which may be metered but not billed.

Converts to…..
1 The cost to produce and supply the next unit of water (e.g., $/million gallons). This cost is determined by calculating the summed unit costs for ground and surface water treatment and all power used for pumping from the source to the customer. It may also include other miscellaneous unit costs that apply to the production of drinking water. It should also include the unit cost of bulk water purchased as an import if applicable.

It is common to apply this unit cost to the volume of Real Losses. However, if water resources are strained and the ability to meet future drinking water demands is in question, then the water auditor can be justified in applying the Customer Retail Rate to the Real Loss volume, rather than applying the Variable Production Cost.

The Free Water Audit Software applies the Variable Production costs to Real Losses by default. However, the auditor has the option on the Reporting Worksheet to select the Customer Retail Cost as the basis for the Real Loss cost evaluation if the auditor determines that this is warranted.

The volume of water withdrawn (abstracted) from water resources (rivers, lakes, streams, wells, etc) controlled by the water utility, and then treated for potable water distribution. Most water audits are compiled for utility retail water distribution systems, so this volume should reflect the amount of treated drinking water that entered the distribution system. Often the volume of water measured at the effluent of the treatment works is slightly less than the volume measured at the raw water source, since some of the water is used in the treatment process. Thus, it is useful if flows are metered at the effluent of the treatment works. If metering exists only at the raw water source, an adjustment for water used in the treatment process should be included to account for water consumed in treatment operations such as filter backwashing, basin flushing and cleaning, etc. If the audit is conducted for a wholesale water agency that sells untreated water, then this quantity reflects the measure of the raw water, typically metered at the source.

To use the default percent value choose this button To enter a value choose this button and enter the value in the cell to the right NOTE: For Unbilled Unmetered Consumption, Unauthorized Consumption and Systematic Data Handling Errors, a recommended default value can be applied by selecting the Percent option. The default values are based on fixed percentages of Water Supplied or Billed Aut horized Consumption and are recommended for use in this audit unless the auditor has well validated data for their system. Default values are sho wn by purple cells, as shown in the example above.

If a default value is selected, the user does not need to grade the item; a grading value of 5 is automatically applied (howe ver, this grade will not be displayed).

Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Definitions 36
Item Name Description
Volume from own
sources: Master
meter and supply
error adjustment
Water exported
Water exported:

Master meter and
supply error
adjustment
Water imported
Water imported:

Master meter and
supply error
adjustment

WATER LOSSES
= apparent losses + real losses
Water Losses are the difference between Water Supplied and Authorized Consumption. Water losses can be considered as a total volume for the whole system, or for partial systems such as transmission systems, pressure zones or district metered areas (DMA); if one of these configurations are the basis of the water audit.

An estimate or measure of the volume in which the Water Imported volume is incorrect. This adjustment is a weighted average that represents the collective error for all of the metered and archived imported flow for all days of the audit year. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Error in the metered, archived data can also occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some level of meter inaccuracy, particularly if meters are aged and infrequently tested. Occasional errors also occur in the archived metered data. Thus, a value of zero should not be entered. Enter a negative percentage or value for metered data under-registration; or, enter a positive percentage or value for metered data over-registration. If regular meter accuracy testing is conducted on the meter(s) - which is usually conducted by the water utility selling the water - then the results of this testing can be used to help quantify the meter error adjustment.

An estimate or measure of the volume in which the Water Exported volume is incorrect. This adjustment is a weighted average that represents the collective error for all of the metered and archived exported flow for all days of the audit year. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Error in the metered, archived data can also occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some degree of error in their metered data, particularly if meters are aged and infrequently tested. Occasional errors also occur in the archived data. Thus, a value of zero should not be entered. Enter a negative percentage or value for metered data under-registration; or enter a positive percentage or value for metered data over-registration. If regular meter accuracy testing is conducted on the meter(s) - which is usually conducted by the water utility selling the water - then the results of this testing can be used to help quantify the meter error adjustment. Corrections to data gaps or other errors found in the archived data should also be included as a portion of this meter error adjustment.

The Water Imported volume is the bulk water purchased to become part of the Water Supplied volume. Typically this is water purchased from a neighboring water utility or regional water authority, and is metered at the custody transfer point of interconnection between the two water utilities. Usually the meter(s) are owned by the water supplier selling the water to the utility conducting the water audit. The water supplier selling the bulk water usually charges the receiving utility based upon a wholesale water rate.

An estimate or measure of the degree of inaccuracy that exists in the master (production) meters measuring the annual Volume from own Sources, and any error in the data trail that exists to collect, store and report the summary production data. This adjustment is a weighted average number that represents the collective error for all master meters for all days of the audit year and any errors identified in the data trail. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter or meters may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Data error can occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some degree of inaccuracy in master meters and data errors in archival systems are common; thus a value of zero should not be entered. Enter a negative percentage or value for metered data under-registration; or, enter a positive percentage or value for metered data over-registration.

The Water Exported volume is the bulk water conveyed and sold by the water utility to neighboring water systems that exists outside of their service area.

Typically this water is metered at the custody transfer point of interconnection between the two water utilities. Usually the meter(s) are owned by the water utility that is selling the water: i.e. the exporter. If the water utility who is compiling the annual water audit sells bulk water in this manner, they are an exporter of water.

Note: The Water Exported volume is sold to wholesale customers who are typically charged a wholesale rate that is different than retail rates charged to the retail customers existing within the service area. Many state regulatory agencies require that the Water Exported volume be reported to them as a quantity separate and distinct from the retail customer billed consumption. For these reasons - and others - the Water Exported volume is always quantified separately from Billed Authorized Consumption in the standard water audit. Be certain not to "double-count" this quantity by including it in both the Water Exported box and the Billed Metered Consumption box of the water audit Reporting Worksheet. This volume should be included only in the Water Exported box.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Definitions 37
Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year: 2021
Data Validity Score: 68
Functional Focus
Area
Audit Data Collection
Short-term loss control
Long-term loss control
Target-setting
Benchmarking
City of Huntington Beach (CA3010053)
1/2021 - 12/2021
Water Loss Control Planning Guide
Establish/revise policies and
procedures for data collection
Refine data collection practices
and establish as routine business
process
Annual water audit is a reliable
gauge of year-to-year water
efficiency standing
Level III (51-70) Level IV (71-90)
Water Audit Data Validity Level / Score
Level I (0-25)
Continue incremental
improvements in short-term and
long-term loss control
interventions
Establish long-term apparent and
real loss reduction goals (+10
year horizon)
Establish mid-range (5 year
horizon) apparent and real loss
reduction goals
For validity scores of 50 or below, the shaded blocks should not be focus areas until better data validity is achieved.

Research information on leak
detection programs. Begin
flowcharting analysis of customer
billing system
Level II (26-50) Level V (91-100)
Analyze business process for
customer metering and billing
functions and water supply
operations. Identify data gaps.

Stay abreast of improvements in
metering, meter reading, billing,
leakage management and
infrastructure rehabilitation
Conduct loss assessment
investigations on a sample
portion of the system: customer
meter testing, leak survey,
unauthorized consumption, etc.

Establish ongoing mechanisms
for customer meter accuracy
testing, active leakage control
and infrastructure monitoring
Refine, enhance or expand
ongoing programs based upon
economic justification
Launch auditing and loss control
team; address production
metering deficiencies
Evaluate and refine loss control
goals on a yearly basis
Begin to assess long-term needs
requiring large expenditure:
customer meter replacement,
water main replacement program,
new customer billing system or
Automatic Meter Reading (AMR)
system.

Begin to assemble economic
business case for long-term
needs based upon improved data
becoming available through the
water audit process.

Conduct detailed planning,
budgeting and launch of
comprehensive improvements for
metering, billing or infrastructure
management
Preliminary Comparisons - can
begin to rely upon the
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI)
for performance comparisons for
real losses (see below table)
Performance Benchmarking - ILI
is meaningful in comparing real
loss standing
Identify Best Practices/ Best in
class - the ILI is very reliable as a
real loss performance indicator
for best in class service
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Determining Water Loss Standing
American Water Works Association.

WAS v5.0
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Loss Control Planning 38 Target ILI Range
1 1.0 - 3.0
2 >3.0 -5.0
3 >5.0 - 8.0
Greater than 8.0
4 Less than 1.0
Once data have been entered into the Reporting Worksheet, the performance indicators are automatically calculated. How does a water utility operator know how well his or her system is performing? The AWWA Water Loss Control Committee provided the following table to assist water utilities is gauging an approximate Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) that is appropriate for their water system and local conditions. The lower the amount of leakage and real losses that exist in the system, then the lower the ILI value will be.

Note: this table offers an approximate guideline for leakage reduction target-setting. The best means of setting such targets include performing an economic assessment of various loss control methods. However, this table is useful if such an assessment is not possible.

Water resources are believed to be sufficient to
meet long-term needs, but demand management
interventions (leakage management, water
conservation) are included in the long-term
planning.Water resources are plentiful, reliable, and easily extracted.

Although operational and financial considerations may allow a long-term ILI greater than 8.0, such a level of leakage is not an effective utilization of water as a resource. Setting a target level greater than 8.0 - other than as an incremental goal to a smaller long-term target - is discouraged.

If the calculated Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) value for your system is 1.0 or less, two possibilities exist. a) you are maintaining your leakage at low levels in a class with the top worldwide performers in leakage control. b) A portion of your data may be flawed, causing your losses to be greatly understated. This is likely if you calculate a low ILI value but do not employ extensive leakage control practices in your operations. In such cases it is beneficial to validate the data by performing field measurements to confirm the accuracy of production and customer meters, or to identify any other potential sources of error in the data.

Water resources can be developed or purchased
at reasonable expense; periodic water rate
increases can be feasibly imposed and are
tolerated by the customer population.

Cost to purchase or obtain/treat water is low, as
are rates charged to customers.

Existing water supply infrastructure capability is
sufficient to meet long-term demand as long as
reasonable leakage management controls are in
place.

Superior reliability, capacity and integrity of the
water supply infrastructure make it relatively
immune to supply shortages.

Financial Considerations
Water resources are costly to develop or
purchase; ability to increase revenues via water
rates is greatly limited because of regulation or low
ratepayer affordability.

Water Resources Considerations
Available resources are greatly limited and are
very difficult and/or environmentally unsound to
develop.

Operational Considerations
Operating with system leakage above this level
would require expansion of existing infrastructure
and/or additional water resources to meet the
demand.

General Guidelines for Setting a Target ILI
(without doing a full economic analysis of leakage control options) AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Loss Control Planning 39 AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Examples of Completed and Validated Audits
Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year:

All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:

Volume from own sources: 7 7,352.880 MG/Yr 3 MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 7,067.430 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 8 4,782.250 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 7 27.757 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:

Unbilled unmetered: 8 157.790 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr24061
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 4,967.797 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 2,099.633 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:

Unauthorized consumption: 5 17.669 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 7 111.220 MG/Yr 2.26% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 5 11.956 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 140.844 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 1,958.789 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 2,099.633 MG/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 2,285.180 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 4 1,236.5 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 55,256 Service connection density: 45 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: 10 ft
Average operating pressure: 4 145.3 psi

COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $33,630,676 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $3.22 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 6 $335.94 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
3: Unauthorized consumption
Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Reporting Worksheet
Unbilled Unmetered volume entered is greater than the recommended default value 2013 7/2012 - 6/2013
City of Asheville (01-11-010)
157.790
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 72 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score 285.450
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/100 cubic feet (ccf)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed

6.252
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property
boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water
supplied
OR
value
?Click here:
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.

Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.

American Water Works Association.

WAS v5.0
Example Audit 1a:

Example 1a: Million Gallons:

Example 1b: Million Gallons:

Performance Indicators
Example 2a: Megalitres:

Reporting Worksheet
Example 2b: Megalitres:

Reporting Worksheet
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Example Audits 40 Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year:

All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 8 4,782.250 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 7 27.757 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:

Unbilled unmetered: 8 157.790 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr24061
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 4,967.797 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 2,099.633 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:

NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 2,285.180 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

Water Audit Report for: City of Asheville (01-11-010)
Reporting Year:

System Attributes:

Apparent Losses: 140.844 MG/Yr
+ Real Losses: 1,958.789 MG/Yr = Water Losses: 2,099.633 MG/Yr Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): 794.34 MG/Yr
Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $606,265
Annual cost of Real Losses: $658,036 Valued at Variable Production Cost Performance Indicators:

Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 32.3% Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 3.9% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 6.98 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day: 97.12 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A
Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 0.67 gallons/connection/day/psi From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 1,958.79 million gallons/year

2.47 * This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:
2013 7/2012 - 6/2013
Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

System Attributes and Performance Indicators
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 72 out of 100 *** ?
?
American Water Works Association.

WAS v5.0
Financial:

Operational Efficiency:

Example Audit 1b:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Example Audits 41 Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year:

All volumes to be entered as: MEGALITRES (THOUSAND CUBIC METRES) PER YEAR Master Meter Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:

Volume from own sources: 7 174,324.000 ML/Yr 7 1.00% ML/Yr Water imported: n/a 0.000 ML/Yr 5 ML/Yr
Water exported: 7 8,190.131 ML/Yr 7 1.00% ML/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 164,488.979 ML/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 6 125,111.268 ML/Yr
Billed unmetered: 8 3,503.386 ML/Yr
Unbilled metered: 7 166.157 ML/Yr Pcnt: Value:

Unbilled unmetered: 6 1,444.000 ML/Yr 1.25% ML/Yr24061
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 130,224.811 ML/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 34,264.168 ML/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:

Unauthorized consumption: 10 411.222 ML/Yr 0.25% ML/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 1,265.429 ML/Yr 1.00% ML/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 5 312.778 ML/Yr 0.25% ML/Yr Apparent Losses: 1,989.429 ML/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 32,274.739 ML/Yr WATER LOSSES: 34,264.168 ML/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 35,874.325 ML/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 4,945.0 kilometers
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 8 312,075 Service connection density: 63 conn./km main
No
Average length of customer service line: 8 12.0 metres
Average operating pressure: 8 50.8 metres (head)

COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 9 $169,973,759 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $2.35 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 9 $73.54 $/Megalitre WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Billed metered
3: Customer metering inaccuracies
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Reporting Worksheet
1,444.000
2013 1/2013 - 12/2013
The City of Calgary
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 72 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score 164.300

3.000
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 litres
100.000
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed

32.920
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property
boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water
supplied
OR
value
?Click here:
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.

Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
Example Audit 2a:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Example Audits 42 Water Audit Report for: The City of Calgary
Reporting Year:

System Attributes:

Apparent Losses: 1,989.429 ML/Yr
+ Real Losses: 32,274.739 ML/Yr = Water Losses: 34,264.168 ML/Yr Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): 8,015.57 ML/Yr
Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $4,675,159
Annual cost of Real Losses: $75,845,637 Valued at Customer Retail Unit Cost Performance Indicators:

Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 21.8% Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 49.6% Real Losses valued at Customer Retail Unit Cost Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 17.47 litres/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day: 283.34 litres/connection/day Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A
Real Losses per service connection per day per meter (head) pressure: 5.58 litres/connection/day/m From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 32,274.74 ML/year

4.03 * This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 20 service connections/kilometre of pipeline Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:
2013 1/2013 - 12/2013
Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

System Attributes and Performance Indicators
*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 72 out of 100 *** ?
?
American Water Works Association.

WAS v5.0
Financial:

Operational Efficiency:

Example Audit 2b:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Example Audits 43 DEVELOPED BY: Andrew Chastain-Howley, PG*, MCSM. Black & Veatch Will J. Jernigan, P.E. Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.

George Kunkel, P.E. Philadelphia Water Department
Alain Lalonde, P.Eng. Master Meter Canada Inc.

Ralph Y. McCord, P.E. Louisville Water Company
David A. Sayers Delaware River Basin Commission
Brian M. Skeens, P.E. CH2M HILL
Reinhard Sturm Water Systems Optimization, Inc.

John H. Van Arsdel M.E. Simpson Company, Inc.

REFERENCES: - Alegre, H., Hirner, W., Baptista, J. and Parena, R. Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services. IWA Publishing ‘Manual of Best Practice’ Series, 2000. ISBN 1 900222 272
- Kunkel, G. et al, 2003. Water Loss Control Committee Report: Applying Worldwide Best Management Practices in Water Loss Control. Journal AWWA, 95:8:65
- AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, M36 Publication, 3 rd Edition, 2009 - Service Connection Diagrams courtesy of Ronnie McKenzie, WRP Pty Ltd.

AWWA Water Audit Software Version 5.0 Developed by the Water Loss Control Committee of the American Water Works Association August, 2014
This software is intended to serve as a basic tool to compile a preliminary, or “top-down”, water audit. It is recommended that users also refer to the current edition of the AWWA M36 Publication, Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, for detailed guidance on compiling a comprehensive, or “bottom-up”, water audit using the same water audit methodology.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Acknowledgements
American Water Works Association.

WAS v5.0
www.awwa.org
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Acknowledgements 44 VERSION HISTORY:

Version: Release
Date:

Number of
Worksheets:
v1 2005/
2006 5
v2 2006 5
v3 2007 7
v4 - v4.2 2010 10
v5 2014 12
In v5, changes were made to the way Water Supplied information is entered into software, with each major component having a corresponding Master Meter Error Adjustment entry (and data grading requirement). This required changes to the data validity score calculation; v5 of the software uses a weighting system that is, in part, proportional to the volume of input components. The Grading Matrix was updated to reflect the new audit inputs and also to include clarifications and additions to the scale descriptions.

The appearance of the software was updated in v5 to make the software more user-friendly and several new features were added to provide more feedback to the user. Notably, a dashboard tab has been added to provide more visual feedback on the water audit results and associated costs of Non-Revenue Water. A comments sheet was added to allow the user to track notes, comments and to cite sources used.

Key Features and Developments
The AWWA Water Audit Software was piloted in 2005 (v1.0 beta). The early versions (1.x) of the software restricted data entry to units of Million Gallons per year. For each entry into the audit, users identified whether the input was measured or estimated.

The most significant enhancement in v2 of the software was to allow the user to choose the volumetric units to be used in the audit, Million Gallons or Thousand Cubic Metres (megalitres) per year. Two financial performance indicators were added to provide feedback to the user on the cost of Real and Apparent losses.

The Grading Matrix also showed the actions required to move to a higher grading score. Grading descriptions were available on the Reporting Worksheet via a pop-up box next to each water audit input. A water audit data validity score is generated (max = 100) and priority areas for attention (to improve audit accuracy) are identified, once a user completes the requied data grading. A service connection diagram was also added to help users understand the impact of customer service line configurations on water losses and how this information should be entered into the water audit software. An acknoweldgements section was also added.

Minor bug fixes resulted in the release of versions 4.1 and 4.2. A French language version was also made available for v4.2.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Acknowledgements 45

6.0_2021_02_11
Name of Utility: VOS Volume from Own Sources
Name of Contact Person: VOSEA VOS Error Adjustment
Email: WI Water Imported
Telephone | Ext.: WIEA WI Error Adjustment
City/Town/Municipality: WE Water Exported
State / Province: WEEA WE Error Adjustment
Other State/Province: BMAC Billed Metered Authorized Consumption Country: BUAC Billed Unmetered Authorized Consumption
Audit Preparation Date: UMAC Unbilled Metered Authorized Consumption Audit Year: UUAC Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption Audit Year Label: (Fiscal, Calendar, etc) SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors Audit Period Start Date: CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies Audit Period End Date: UC Unauthorized Consumption
Volume Reporting Units: Lm Length of mains
Water System Structure: Nc Number of service connections Water Type: Lp Average length of (private) customer service line System ID Number: AOP Average Operating Pressure
Validator Name/ID: CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge
Validator Email: VPC Variable Production Cost
Estimated Total Population Served by Water Utility:

Color Key User input Calculated Optional default
Guidance for the Guidance for the
or
AWWA Web Resources for Water Loss Control
https://www.awwa.org/Resources-Tools/Resource-Topics/Water-Loss-Control or Items referenced in the Free Water Audit Software v6.0 on the web:

Data Grading Matrix v6.0
Example Water Audit v6.0
Water Audit Compiler v6.0
AWWA Reports on Performance Indicators
M36 Manual
If you have questions or comments regarding this software please contact us at: [email protected] Answer questions about operational practices for each
audit input, and the data validity grades will automatically populate.

Review NRW components, performance indicators and
graphical outputs to evaluate the results of the audit.

Enter notes to explain how values were calculated,
document data sources, and related information about
data management practices.

Interactive Data
Grading
714-374-1641
Huntington Beach
USA
Acre-feet
Nov 08 2023
California (CA)
Dec 31 2022
Jan 01 2022
Calendar
2022
Enter the required data on this worksheet to calculate the water balance and data grading.

Water Balance
Loss Control
Planning
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0
Enter Basic Information
Chris Davis
[email protected]
Table of Contents (TOC)
The current sheet. Enter contact information and basic
audit details.

Key of Input Acronyms In order of appearance in
the Worksheet
City of Huntington Beach
This spreadsheet-based water audit tool is designed to help quantify and track water losses associated with water distribution systems and identify areas for improved efficiency and cost recovery. It provides a "top-down" summary water audit format and is not meant to take the place of a full-scale, comprehensive water audit format. Auditors are strongly encouraged to refer to the most current edition of AWWA M36 Manual for Water Audits for detailed guidance on the water auditing process and targeting loss reduction levels. This tool contains several separate worksheets. Sheets can be accessed using the tabs at the bottom of the screen, or by clicking the TOC links below.

Start Page
Blank Sheet
Worksheet
Interactive Data Grading
After clicking an acronym button, answer all visible questions in the order they're presented, choosing best-fit answer
Dashboard
Notes
Acknowledgements for development of the AWWA Free
Water Audit Software v6.0.

Acknowledge-
ments
By popular demand! A blank sheet.

The world is your canvas.

The values entered in the Worksheet automatically
populate the Water Balance.

Use this sheet to interpret the results of the audit validity score and performance indicators.

Use this sheet to understand the terms used in the audit process.

Diagrams depicting possible customer service connection line configurations.

Definitions
Service
Connection
Diagram
Choosing to enter unit of percent or volume
(applies to VOSEA, WIEA, WEEA, CMI)
Limiting
Choosing to enter default or custom input
(applies to UUAC, SDHE, UC)
choose entry option:

1.00% percent
7Grade will populate when all visible questions
are complete for an input
The limiting criteria will be labeled along the right. If only 1 limiting criterion is shown, improving on that criterion will achieve a higher data grade. If multiple limiting criteria are shown, improving on each limiting criterion is necessary to achieve a higher data grade. A complete inventory of data grading criteria is available in the Data Grading Matrix v6.0 (see web resources)

0.25%
Retail
Potable Water
custom 75.000
volume 25.000
default
CA3010053
Rachel Davis
Use acronym buttons in IDG header to navigate among inputs. Acronym Key above.

White = needs answers, orange = complete, clear = not required. Example below. 196,469
[email protected]
choose entry option:

Worksheet
American Water Works Association Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved.

FWAS v6.0
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Start Page 1
Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER SUPPLIED choose entry option:

VOS Volume from Own Sources: n g 7 17,091.400 Acre-ft/Yr n g 8 percent acre-ft/yr under-registration VOSEA WI Water Imported: n g 6 8,373.100 Acre-ft/Yr n g percent acre-ft/yr select….. WIEA WE Water Exported: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr n g n/a percent acre-ft/yr select….. WEEA 25,464.500 Acre-ft/Yr
.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
BMAC Billed Metered: n g 9 24,038.370 Acre-ft/Yr
BUAC Billed Unmetered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr
UMAC Unbilled Metered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr choose entry option:

UUAC Unbilled Unmetered: n g 3 60.096 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr24061 Default option selected for Unbilled Unmetered, with automatic data grading of 3 24,098.466 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES 1,366.034 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 choose entry option:

SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 60.096 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 6 60.247 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% percent acre-ft/yr under-registration UC Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 60.096 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3 180.438 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses
1,185.596 Acre-ft/Yr
1,366.034 Acre-ft/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
1,426.130 Acre-ft/Yr

SYSTEM DATA
Lm Length of mains: n g 10 579.8 miles (including fire hydrant lead lengths) Nc Number of service connections: n g 8 54,223 (active and inactive) Service connection density: 94 conn./mile main
Yes
Lp Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10 ft (average distance between property line and meter) AOP Average Operating Pressure: n g 8 70.3 psi

COST DATA
CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge: n g 10 $2.32
VPC Variable Production Cost: n g 8 $804.10 $/acre-ft $/yr (optional input) WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER:
go to
dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:

Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components: OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) Unit Total Losses: 17.8 gal/conn/day 2: Water Imported (WI) Unit Apparent Losses: 3.2 gal/conn/day 3: Unauthorized Consumption (UC) Unit Real LossesA: 14.6 gal/conn/day Unit Real LossesB: gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard) Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Worksheet
City of Huntington Beach
Jan 01 2022 - Dec 31 2022
Water Supplied Error Adjustments
Calendar2022
Real Losses:

WATER LOSSES:

Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier IV (71-90). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. *** $/100 cubic feet (ccf)
$28,097,328
Total Annual Operating Cost
go to start page
NON-REVENUE WATER:

If entering an
Error Adjustment,
select under- or over-
registration

3.000
WATER SUPPLIED:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:

Apparent Losses:

Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
Click 'n' to add notes
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

To access definitions, click the input name
To edit water system info:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Worksheet 2
Interactive Data Grading Responses
2022
go to notes
vos Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vos.0 Did the water utility supply any water from its own sources during the audit year? Yes vos.1 What percent of own supply volume is metered? >99% vos.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration? Annually Limiting vos.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process? Data transfer errors are checked at secondary device(s), but not to tertiary device(s) Limiting vos.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available for review? Yes vos.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? None, or Not within last 5 years Limiting vos.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available for review? vos.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
vos.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? Yes vos.9 Which best describes the frequency of finished water meter readings? Continuous vos.10
Which best describes the frequency of data review for anomalies/errors? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

More frequently than monthly, but not every day
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT: 7
Limiting
criteria
(see Start
Page for
details)
For questions 2-10 below: Choose the answer that applies for those meters that measure >90% of the finished water volume.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

Volume from Own Sources (VOS) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Interactive Data Grading 6 CMI
3SDHE
3 UC
9 BMAC
n/a UMAC
n/aBUAC
n/aWEEA
n/aWE
WIEA
7VOS
8 VOSEA
6 WI
8 AOP
10Lm
8 Nc
10 Lp
10 CRUC
8 VPC
Use acronyms for navigation
Orange = complete
FWAS v6.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved. 3 UUAC
White = incomplete
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 3 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
vosea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vosea.1 Are tank levels monitored automatically & recorded daily? Yes vosea.2 Are daily changes of stored water volumes in distribution system tanks included in the tabulation of the daily "Volume from Own Sources" quantity? No Limiting vosea.3 Is the annual net distribution storage change included in either the VOS input or the VOSEA input? No
vosea.4 Are the flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results included in the VOSEA input in the water audit? Yes, results are analyzed and a 'no-adjustment' was determined FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT: 8
Volume from Own Sources Error Adjustment (VOSEA) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 4 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
wi Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions wi.0 Did the water utility import any water during the audit year? Yes wi.1 What percent of water imported is metered? >99%
wi.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration? At least semi-annually wi.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process? Data transfer errors are checked at secondary device(s) AND tertiary device(s) wi.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available? Yes wi.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? None, or Not within last 5 years wi.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available? wi.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
wi.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? Yes wi.9 Which best describes the frequency of meter readings (data collection frequency as opposed to billing frequency)? Continuous
wi.10
What is the frequency of data review & correction by Exporting or Importing Utility for data gaps and/or anomalies? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

Once per month Limiting
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
6 For questions 2-10 below: Choose the answer that applies for those meters that measure >90% of the water imported volume.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

Water Imported (WI) - Data Grading Criteriago to input
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 5 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
wiea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions wiea.1 Is an agreement in place between Exporting and Importing Utility for the purchase of water? Yes, written
wiea.2 Are meter accuracy testing or electronic calibration requirements stipulated in the water purchase agreement?
wiea.3 Are flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results used to inform the error adjustment input in the water audit? Yes, results are analyzed and a 'no-adjustment' was determined wiea.4 Who has access to the import meter readings including current and archived data? Exporting and Importing Utility FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:

Water Imported Error Adjustment (WIEA) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 6 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
we Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions we.0 Did the water utility export any water during the audit year? No we.1 What percent of water exported is metered?
we.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration?
we.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process?
we.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available? we.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? we.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available? we.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
we.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? we.9 Which best describes the frequency of meter readings (data collection frequency as opposed to billing frequency)?
we.10
What is the frequency of data review & correction by Exporting or Importing Utility for data gaps and/or anomalies? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
For questions 2-10 below: Choose the answer that applies for those meters that measure >90% of the water exported volume.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

Water Exported (WE) - Data Grading Criteriago to input
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 7 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
weea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions weea.1 Is an agreement in place between Exporting and Importing Utility? weea.2 Are meter accuracy testing or electronic calibration requirements stipulated in the water purchase agreement?
weea.3 Are flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results used to inform the error adjustment input in the water audit?
weea.4 Who has access to the import meter readings including current and archived data? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
Water Exported Error Adjustment (WEEA) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 8 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
bmac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions bmac.0 Were any customers metered in the audit year? Yes bmac.1 For billed metered accounts, what % of bills are estimated in a typical billing cycle? 5% or less bmac.2
How often does the utility read its customer meters?
For systems with multiple read frequencies, select the reading frequency that describes the majority of your customers.

Monthly Limiting
bmac.3 Is the BMAC volume pro-rated to represent consumption occuring exactly during the audit period? Yes
bmac.4 How frequently does internal review by utility staff of the BMAC volumes occur? Every billing cycle bmac.5 What level of detail is examined in the internal review of BMAC volumes? Totals grouped by use type or customer class and specific accounts flagged for anomalous consumption bmac.6 When was the most recent billing data review by someone who is independent of the utility billing process? Within last 3 years
bmac.7 What level of detail was examined in the review by someone who is independent of the utility billing process? Full billing database query and analysis of raw data to verify the summary consumption volumes FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
9 Billed Metered Authorized Consumption (BMAC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 9 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
buac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions buac.0 Was there any billed consumption on unmetered accounts in the audit year? No buac.1 What portion of billed accounts are unmetered (% by number of accounts)? buac.2 Methodology to quantify consumption for unmetered accounts? buac.3 How frequently is unmetered customer consumption estimated? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
Billed Unmetered Authorized Consumption (BUAC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 10 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
umac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions umac.0 Did the water utility have any unbilled-metered consumption in the audit year? No umac.1 Does the water utility policy articulate which accounts are exempt from billing? umac.2 How many unbilled metered accounts exist?
umac.3
How often is each unbilled customer meter read?
For systems with multiple read frequencies, select the reading frequency that describes the majority of your customers.
umac.4 How often are unbilled metered volumes reviewed for error? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
Unbilled Metered Authorized Consumption (UMAC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 11 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
uuac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions uuac.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered uuac.1 How well-understood is the extent of unbilled unmetered use? uuac.2 Which best describes the records that are kept for events of unbilled unmetered use?
uuac.3 How is the majority of unbilled unmetered use estimated? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption (UUAC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 12 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
sdhe Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions sdhe.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered sdhe.1 Which best describes how the input was derived?
sdhe.2 Which best describes validation performed in the billing software for multipliers (conversions between unit of meter reading and unit of billing)? sdhe.3 Which best describes the policy for new service accounts to ensure there is no lapse between start of customer water usage and start of measurement/billing? sdhe.4 Which best describes auditing that takes place on the billing process? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet Systematic Data Handling Error (SDHE) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 13 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
cmi Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions cmi.0 Was there any metered customer usage during the audit period? Yes cmi.1 Do you test meters reactively (when triggered by customer complaint or billing/consumption flag)? Reactive testing conducted
cmi.2
For small size customer meters, which best describes the frequency of proactive testing (effort beyond when triggered by customer complaint or billing/consumption flags)?
Recurring, within two years of the audit period
cmi.3 Which best describes what meters are included in the proactive small size customer meter testing activities? Testing targeted to subsets of meters ie oldest meters cmi.4 For mid and large size customer meters, which best describes the frequency of the proactive testing program? Recurring, within 5 years prior to audit period, but less frequently than annually cmi.5 Which best describes what meters are included in the proactive mid- and large customer meter testing activities? Testing targeted to subsets of meters (ie most revenue generating or customer types) cmi.6 Which best describes how the input was derived? Meter accuracy test results or manufacturer specs are referenced but not analyzed and used directly in calculation Limiting cmi.7 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
cmi.8 To what extent does meter replacement occur and for which meters? Replacement upon complete failure or special circumstance (as needed) cmi.9 Which best describes the reliability of meter installation records? Records are kept for meter installations, and they include data on installation date, type, size, and manufacturer FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
6 Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 14 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
uc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions uc.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered uc.1 Which best describes how the input was derived?
uc.2 Which best describes the extent of unauthorized consumption tracking and oversight?
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet Unauthorized Consumption (UC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 15 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Lm Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Lm.1 How was the input derived? Derived directly from Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) Lm.2 Are hydrant laterals included in the input derivation? Yes Lm.3 Which best describes how the Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) is kept up to date? Additions or subtractions are updated in the mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc), at least annually Lm.4 Which best describes how the Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) is field validated to confirm field conditions match the inventory? Field validation is accomplished (i.e. in daily operations or specific validation projects) FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 Length of Mains (Lm) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 16 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Nc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Nc.1 How was the input derived? Extracted from Services inventory (GIS, billing system, etc) Nc.2 What is the count of services based on? Non-premise based, i.e. meter count, customer count Limiting Nc.3 Are inactive (but still pressurized) service lines included in the input? These may be metered or unmetered. Yes
Nc.4 Which best describes how the inventory of service connections (GIS, billing system, etc) is kept up to date? Additions or subtractions are updated in the service line inventory (GIS, billing system, etc), at least annually Nc.5 Which best describes how the inventory of service connections (GIS, billing system, etc) is field validated to confirm field conditions match the inventory? Field validation is accomplished for the entire system (i.e. in daily operations or specific validation projects) FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
8 Number of Service Connections (Nc) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 17 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Lp Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Lp.0 Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Yes Lp.1 How was the input derived?
Lp.2 Which best describes how the Customer Service Line and Meter Locations mapping is kept up to date?
Lp.3 Which best describes how the Customer Service Line mapping is validated to what is in the field?
Lp.4 Which best describes the policy to define where the utility's ownership of the service line ends, and the customer's ownership of the service line begins? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 Average Length of (Private) Customer Service Line (Lp) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 18 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
aop Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions aop.1 Which best describes checks on the boundary integrity for the system's pressure zone(s)? Normally-closed boundary valves between zones have been confirmed within the past 3 years to be fully closed aop.2 Which best describes how one-time pressure readings (i.e. from hydrants) are collected? Collected only if there are low pressure complaints, or new development requests Limiting aop.3 Which best describes where continuous pressure data (via temporary data loggers or permanent telemetry) is collected? At zone boundary conditions, plus some locations inside the zone(s) but not representing the full pressure profile aop.4 Which best describes how continuous pressure data is collected? Year-round data collection via permanent monitoring aop.5 How was the input derived? Derived from hydraulic model, where model has not been field calibrated in the last 5 years FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
8 Average Operating Pressure (AOP) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 19 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
cruc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions cruc.0 Was any metered consumption billed on a volumetric basis in the audit period? Yes cruc.1 Which best describes the use and reliability of the current rate structure? Customer bill calculations have been checked to confirm the rate structure is correctly implemented cruc.2 Choose the option that best describes how the input was derived A volume-weighted average of all rates was calculated cruc.3 Is there any additional volumetric revenue the utility receives that depends on water meter readings, such as sewer? No
cruc.4 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 20 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
vpc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vpc.1 Choose the option that best describes how the input was derived Multiple sources of water exist, and a volume-weighted average was calculated for all sources vpc.2
Choose the option that best describes which short-run marginal costs have been included in the input, using the definitions below for reference. Short-run marginal costs can include the following:
- chemicals + power for treatment, typically applicable if the utility is producing/treating water
- power for distribution, typically applicable if pumps exist in the distribution network - water acquisition costs, typically applicable if the utility is purchasing water or incurs any extraction costs for withdrawing from a source
Some short-run marginal costs may not be applicable. The auditor should analyze the system characteristics to determine which costs are applicable for inclusion in the VPC input derivation. See also the latest AWWA M36 Manual for further guidance.

All applicable short-run marginal costs are included
vpc.3
Choose the option that best describes which long-run marginal costs have been included in the input, using the definitions below for reference. Long-run marginal costs can include the following:
- water treatment residuals management, typically applicable if solids are produced from water treatment process
- accelerated wear & tear on dynamic equipment, typically applicable if pumps exist for treatment and/or distribution, or any other equipment exists that wears out as a function of use instead of time (i.e. filter media, chemical dosing pumps, uv disinfection bulbs, etc)
- payouts for damage claims from main and service line breaks, typically applicable if damage claims are paid by the utility
- accelerated expansion of supply capacity, typically applicable if the utility is at or nearing supply capacity, or scarecity costs in water scarce areas - full cost pricing that includes all lifecycle costs and externalities (internalized or not) Some long-run marginal costs may not be applicable. The auditor should analyze the system characteristics to determine which costs are applicable for inclusion in the VPC input derivation. See also the latest AWWA M36 Manual for further guidance.

Long-run marginal costs have not been evaluated for applicability, and are not included Limiting vpc.4 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT: 8
Variable Production Cost (VPC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 21 of 39 0 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Dashboard
Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Audit Year: Calendar Jan 01 2022 - Dec 31 2022 Actual KPI result Target (see Worksheet)
1 US$ = Local
Data Validity Score: Data Validity Tier: enter current conversion rate for local currency Tier II (26-50) Tier III (51-70)
Tier IV (71-90)
Tier I (≤25)
Tier V (91-100)
Total Loss Cost Rate Apparent Loss Cost Rate Real Loss Cost Rate $/conn/year $/conn/year $/conn/year
NRW Components Summary
Unit Total Losses Unit Apparent Losses Unit Real LossesA gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/conn/day
Average Operating Pressure
psi
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) Unit Real LossesB
dimensionless gal/mile/day
See UARL definition for additional guidance on the ILI
Real Losses Unauthorized Consumption Acre-ft/Yr gal/conn/day Systematic Data Handling Errors Unbilled Unmetered Auth Cons Customer Metering Inaccuracies Unbilled Metered Authorized Cons Apparent Losses
Real Losses
Unbilled Authorized Cons
Non-Revenue Water
0 2022
Tier IV (71-90)73
Data Validity
gauge %iles per validated industry ranges2

0.737
Loss Control Planning for Tier DetailsSee
Key Performance Indicators

17.58 go to referencesgo to worksheet go to grading

20.94 22.5

3.36 3.0
(UARL) Unavoidable Annual Real Losses 887.5 14.6 VPC
1,8261.3

19.5 70.3
CRUC
Basis of Valuation
Blended

60.1 1,426.1
$182,350
$953,337
$48,323
$1,184,010
180.4
1,185.6 VPC
Volume Value
Acre-ft/Yr $/Yr
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600Volume (Acre-ft/Yr)
Total Volume of NRW = 1,426
Acre-ft/Yr
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
Total Cost of NRW =
$1,184,010/Yr
10th %ile
25th %ile
Median
75th %ile
90th %ile
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
American Water Works Association.

FWAS v6.0
2 3
4 2
3 4Median
90th %ile90th %ile90th %ile
Median Median
Median Median Median
Median Median
25th
%ile
25th
%ile
25th
%ile
25th
%ile 25th
%ile
25th
%ile
25th
%ile
25th
%ile
75th %ile75th %ile75th %ile
75th %ile 75th %ile 75th %ile
75th %ile75th %ile
10th %ile10th %ile10th %ile
90th %ile10th %ile 90th %ile10th %ile
90th %ile90th %ile90th %ile 10th %ile10th %ile10th %ile Guidance Information for Key Performance
Table 1 Source: AWWA Water Loss Control Committee Report (2020)1, with naming conventions updated 2020 AWWA Water Audit Method – Water Audit Outputs and Key Performance Indicators: Uses and Limitations Type Indicator Description
Suitable Purposes
Uses and Limitations Principal
Users Assessment Bench-
Marking
Target-
Setting
Planning Tracking
Attribute Apparent Loss Volume Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss level Utility, Regulators Apparent Loss Cost Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess cost loss level Utility, Regulators Real Loss Volume Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss level Utility, Regulators Real Loss Cost Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss cost level Utility, Regulators Unavoidable Annual
Real Loss (UARL)
Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Reveal theoretical technical low level of leakage
Utility, Regulators
Volume Unit Apparent Losses
(vol/conn/day)
Strong and understandable indicator for
multiple users.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Used for performance
tracking and target-setting
Utility, Regulators
Unit Real LossesA
(vol/conn/day)
Strong and understandable indicator for
multiple users.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Used for performance
tracking and target-setting
Utility, Regulators,
Policy Makers
Unit Real LossesB
(vol/pipeline length/
day)
Strong and understandable indicator for use
by utilities with low connection density.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Data collection and
assessment of systems with
“low” connection density
Utility, Regulators,
Policy Makers
Unit Total Losses
(vol/conn/day)
New KPI
Strong and understandable indicator,
suitable for high-level performance
measurement.
✓ ✓ High level indicator for
trending analysis. Not
appropriate for target-setting
or benchmarking
Utilities,
Customers
Infrastructure Leakage
Index (ILI)
Robust, specialized ratio KPI; can be
influenced by pressure and connection
density.
✓ ✓ ✓ Benchmarking after pressure
management is implemented
Utilities
Value Apparent Loss Cost
Rate (value/conn/year)
New KPI
Indicators with sufficient technical rigor.

Provide the unit financial value of each type
of loss, which is useful for planning and
assessment of cost efficiency of water loss
reduction and control interventions and
programs.
✓ ✓ ✓ Data collection and
assessment on AWWA
indicators or contextual
parameters to use in
conjunction with Loss Cost
Rates
Utilities,
Regulators,
Customers
Real Loss Cost Rate
(value/conn/year)
New KPI
✓ ✓ ✓ Utilities,
Regulators,
Customers
Validity Data Validity Tier
(DVT)
Strong indicator of water loss audit data
quality, if data has been validated. Tier
provides guidance on priority areas of
activity.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Assess caliber of data inputs
of the water audit
Regulators,
Utilities

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Dashboard 22
Table 1 Source: AWWA Water Loss Control Committee Report (2020)1, with naming conventions updated 2020 AWWA Water Audit Method – Water Audit Outputs and Key Performance Indicators: Uses and Limitations Type Indicator Description
Suitable Purposes
Uses and Limitations Principal
Users Assessment Bench-
Marking
Target-
Setting
Planning Tracking
Attribute Apparent Loss Volume Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss level Utility, Regulators Apparent Loss Cost Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess cost loss level Utility, Regulators Real Loss Volume Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss level Utility, Regulators Real Loss Cost Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss cost level Utility, Regulators Unavoidable Annual
Real Loss (UARL)
Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Reveal theoretical technical low level of leakage
Utility, Regulators
Volume Unit Apparent Losses
(vol/conn/day)
Strong and understandable indicator for
multiple users.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Used for performance
tracking and target-setting
Utility, Regulators
Unit Real LossesA
(vol/conn/day)
Strong and understandable indicator for
multiple users.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Used for performance
tracking and target-setting
Utility, Regulators,
Policy Makers
Unit Real LossesB
(vol/pipeline length/
day)
Strong and understandable indicator for use
by utilities with low connection density.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Data collection and
assessment of systems with
“low” connection density
Utility, Regulators,
Policy Makers
Unit Total Losses
(vol/conn/day)
New KPI
Strong and understandable indicator,
suitable for high-level performance
measurement.
✓ ✓ High level indicator for
trending analysis. Not
appropriate for target-setting
or benchmarking
Utilities,
Customers
Infrastructure Leakage
Index (ILI)
Robust, specialized ratio KPI; can be
influenced by pressure and connection
density.
✓ ✓ ✓ Benchmarking after pressure
management is implemented
Utilities
Value Apparent Loss Cost
Rate (value/conn/year)
New KPI
Indicators with sufficient technical rigor.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Dashboard 23
Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Calendar Audit Year: 2022 Jan 01 2022 - Dec 31 2022
General Notes:

Audit Item Notes on Input Derivation Notes on Data Validity Grading go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
Volume from
Own Sources
Error Adjustment
(VOSEA)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

User Notes
Volume from
Own Sources
(VOS)
Water Imported
(WI)
Water Imported
Error Adjustment
(WIEA)
Water Exported
(WE)
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Notes 24
Audit Item Notes on Input Derivation Notes on Data Validity Grading go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
Water Exported
Error Adjustment
(WEIA)
Billed Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(BMAC)
Billed Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(BUAC)
Unbilled Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(UMAC)
Unbilled
Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(UUAC)
Systematic Data
Handling Errors
(SDHE)
Customer
Metering
Inaccuracies
(CMI)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Notes 25
Audit Item Notes on Input Derivation Notes on Data Validity Grading go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
Customer Retail
Unit Charge
(CRUC)
Variable
Production Cost
(VPC)
Unauthorized
Consumption
(UC)
Length of Mains
(Lm)
Number of
Service
Connections
(Nc)
Average Length of
(private)
Customer
Service Line
(Lp)
Average
Operating
Pressure
(AOP)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Notes 26
Hello, I am a blank sheet, at your service.

4.2%
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0
Water Balance Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year: 2022 Jan 01 2022 - Dec 31 2022
Data Validity Tier: Tier IV (71-90)
Water Exported
(WE)
(corrected for known
errors)
Revenue Water
(Exported)

0.000 0.000
Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC)
(water exported is removed) Revenue Water
24,038.370
24,038.370 Billed Unmetered Consumption (BUAC) 24,038.370

0.000
24,098.466 Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC)

0.000
17,091.400 60.096 Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC)

60.096
Water Supplied Systematic Data Handling Errors (SDHE) 1,426.130 25,464.500 Apparent Losses 60.096
25,464.500 180.438 Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI)

60.247
Unauthorized Consumption (UC)
Water Losses 60.096
1,366.034 Leakage on Transmission and/or Distribution
Mains
Real Losses Not broken down
8,373.100 1,185.596 Leakage and Overflows at Utility's Storage Tanks
Not broken down
Leakage on Service Connections
Not broken down
Water Imported (WI)
(corrected for known
errors)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software
Non-Revenue Water
(NRW)
Billed Authorized Consumption
Unbilled Authorized Consumption
(corrected for known
errors)
City of Huntington Beach
Billed Water Exported
Volume from Own
Sources (VOS)
System Input
Volume
Authorized
Consumption
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Water Balance 28 Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year: 2022
Data Validity Tier:

Functional Focus
Area
Audit Data Collection
Short-term loss control
Long-term loss control
Target-setting
Benchmarking
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Determining Water Loss Standing
For validity scores of 50 or below, the shaded blocks should not be focus areas until better data validity is achieved.

Preliminary Comparisons - can begin to
rely upon with PIs for performance
comparisons for real losses
Performance Benchmarking with PIs is
meaningful in comparing real loss
standing
Identify Best Practices/ Best in class;
PIs are very reliable as real loss
performance indicators for best in class
service
Research information on leak detection
programs; Begin flowcharting analysis of
customer billing system
Tier II (26-50) Tier V (91-100)
Analyze business process for customer
metering and billing functions and water
supply operations; Identify data gaps;
improve supply metering
Stay abreast of improvements in
metering, meter reading, billing, leakage
management and infrastructure
rehabilitation
Conduct loss assessment investigations
on a sample portion of the system:
customer meter testing, leak survey,
unauthorized consumption, etc
Establish ongoing mechanisms for
customer meter accuracy testing, active
leakage control and infrastructure
monitoring
Refine, enhance or expand ongoing
programs based upon economic
justification
Launch auditing and loss control team;
address supply metering deficiencies
Evaluate and refine loss control goals on
a yearly basis
Begin to assess long-term needs
requiring large expenditure: customer
meter replacement, water main
replacement program, new customer
billing system or AMR/AMI system
Begin to assemble economic business
case for long-term needs based upon
improved data becoming available
through the water audit process
Conduct detailed planning, budgeting
and launch of comprehensive
improvements for metering, billing or
infrastructure management
Continue incremental improvements in
short-term and long-term loss control
interventions
Establish long-term apparent and real
loss reduction goals (+10 year horizon)
Establish mid-range (5 year horizon)
apparent and real loss reduction goals
City of Huntington Beach
Water Loss Control Planning Guide
Establish/revise policies and procedures
for data collection
Refine data collection practices and
establish as routine business process
Annual water audit is a reliable gauge of
year-to-year water efficiency standing
Tier III (51-70) Tier IV (71-90)
Water Audit Data Validity Tier (Score Range)
Tier I (1-25)
Tier IV (71-90)
Jan 01 2022 - Dec 31 2022
American Water Works Association.

FWAS v6.0
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Loss Control Planning 29 Item Name
Apparent
Losses

AUTHORIZED

CONSUMPTION
Average Length
of (private)
Customer Service
Line
(Lp)
Average
Operating
Pressure
(AOP)
Billed Authorized
Consumption
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Definitions
Description
= billed metered + billed unmetered + unbilled metered + unbilled unmetered consumption The volume of metered and/or unmetered water taken by registered customers, the water utility's own uses, and uses of others who are implicitly or explicitly authorized to do so by the water utility; for residential, commercial, industrial and public-minded purposes.

Typical retail customers' consumption is tabulated usually from established customer accounts as billed metered consumption, or - for unmetered customers - billed unmetered consumption. These types of consumption, along with billed water exported, provide revenue potential for the water utility. Typically a lag will exist between timing for reading of supply meters and reading of customer meters. A lag-time correction should typically be calculated to account for this. Be certain to tabulate the water exported volume as a separate component and do not "double-count" it by including in the billed metered consumption component as well as the water exported component.

Unbilled authorized consumption occurs typically in non-account uses, including water for fire fighting and training, flushing of water mains and sewers, street cleaning, watering of municipal gardens, public fountains, or similar public-minded uses. Occasionally these uses may be metered and billed (or charged a flat fee), but usually they are unmetered and unbilled. In the latter case, the water auditor may use a default value to estimate this quantity, or implement procedures for the reliable quantification of these uses. This starts with documenting usage events as they occur and estimating the amount of water used in each event. (See Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption) This is the average length of underground customer service line, Lp, that is owned and maintained by the customer; from the point of ownership transfer to the customer water meter, or building line (if unmetered). The quantity is one of the data inputs for the calculation of Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL), which serves as the denominator of the performance indicator: Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI). The value of Lp is multiplied by the number of customer service connections to obtain a total length of customer owned piping in the system. The purpose of this parameter is to account for the unmetered service line infrastructure that is the responsibility of the customer for arranging repairs of leaks that occur on their lines. In many cases leak repairs arranged by customers take longer to be executed than leak repairs arranged by the water utility on utility-maintained piping. Leaks run longer - and lose more water - on customer-owned service piping, than utility owned piping.

If the auditor selects "Yes" then this distance is set to zero and the data grading score for this component is set to 10.

This is the average pressure in the distribution system that is the subject of the water audit. If the water utility is compiling the water audit for the first time, the average pressure can be approximated, but with a low data grading. In subsequent years of auditing, effort should be made to improve the accuracy of the average pressure quantity. This will then qualify the value for a higher data grading.

In the absence of a hydraulic model, the average pressure may be approximated by obtaining readings of static water pressure from a representative sample of fire hydrants or other system access points evenly located across the system. A weighted average of the pressure can be assembled; but be sure to take into account the elevation of the fire hydrants, which typically exist several feet higher than the level of buried water pipelines.

If your water utility has an up-to-date and calibrated hydraulic model of the water distribution system, it can be utilized to obtain a very accurate quantity of average pressure. However using the average pressure of all “nodes” in the system model is not necessarily the most accurate way to calculate the average operating pressure. This is especially true if there are significant pressure differences throughout the system, and the “nodes” are not evenly distributed throughout the distribution system. The most accurate calculation is to obtain the average pressure that each pipe segment experiences. The way to do this is to calculate the pressure at each end of the pipe. Then calculate the average of those two values and multiply this average value by the length of that pipe.

This must be calculated for all pipe segments in the model. Finally calculate the sum of all of these values and and divide by the total pipe length. This effectively calculates a weighted average of pressure over the total pipe length. For low density systems (<32 connections/mile), average mains pressures at the service connection or curb stop may have greater influence and should be considered.

All consumption that is billed and authorized by the utility. This may include both metered and unmetered consumption. See "Authorized Consumption" for more information.
= systematic data handling errors + customer metering inaccuracies + unauthorized consumption Apparent Losses include all types of inaccuracies associated with customer metering (worn meters as well as improperly sized meters or wrong type of meter for the water usage profile) as well as systematic data handling errors (meter reading, billing, archiving and reporting), plus unauthorized consumption (theft or illegal use).

NOTE: Over-estimation of Apparent Losses results in under-estimation of Real Losses. Under-estimation of Apparent Losses results in over-estimation of Real Losses.

A
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

Find
Find
Find
Find
View
Service
Connection
Diagram
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 30
Item Name Description
Billed Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(BMAC)
Billed Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(BUAC)
Customer
Metering
Inaccuracies
(CMI)
Customer Retail
Unit Charge
(CRUC)
Infrastructure
Leakage Index
(ILI)
Apparent water losses caused by the collective under-registration of customer water meters. Many customer water meters gradually wear as large cumulative volumes of water are passed through them over time. This causes the meters to under-register the flow of water. This occurrence is common with smaller residential meters of sizes 5/8-inch and 3/4 inch after they have registered very large cumulative volumes of water, which generally occurs only after periods of years. For meters sized 1-inch and larger - typical of multi-unit residential, commercial, institutional and industrial accounts - meter under-registration can occur from wear or from the improper application of the meter; i.e. installing the wrong type of meter or the wrong size of meter, for the flow pattern (profile) of the consumer. For instance, many larger meters have reduced accuracy at low flows. If an oversized meter is installed, most of the time the routine flow will occur in the low flow range of the meter, and a significant portion of it may not be registered. It is important to properly select and install all meters, but particularly large customer meters, size 1-inch and larger.

Note that a value of zero will be accepted but is not recommended, as all metered systems tend to have some degree of inaccuracy. A positive value should be entered. A value of zero in this component is generally valid only if the water utility does not meter its customer population.

The formula for caculating a volume of CMI from a percentage input is as follows: CMI volume = (BMAC+UMAC)/(1-CMI%)-(BMAC+UMAC) The Customer Retail Unit Charge represents the volumetric portion of the total charges that customers pay for water service. The CRUC does not include fixed charges. This unit charge cost is applied routinely to the components of Apparent Loss, since these losses represent water reaching customers but not (fully) paid for. Since most water utilities have a rate structure that includes a variety of different charges costs based upon class of customer, a volume- weighted average of water sold at each unique rate should be calculated to determine a single composite charge that should be entered into this cell. Finally, the weighted average charge should also include additional charges for sewer, storm water or biosolids processing, but only if these charges are based upon the volume of potable water consumed.

For water utilities in regions with limited water resources and a questionable ability to meet the drinking water demands in the future, the Customer Retail Unit Charge Cost might also be applied to value the Real Losses; instead of applying the Variable Production Cost to Real Losses. In this way, it is assumed that every unit volume of leakage reduced by leakage management activities will be sold to a customer.

Note: the Free Water Audit Software allows the user to select the units that are charged to customers (either $/1,000 gallons, $/hundred cubic feet, or $/1,000 litres) and automatically converts these units for purpose of calculating Apparent Loss valuations. The monetary units are United States dollars, $.

The ratio of the Current Annual Real Losses (Real Losses) to the Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). This performance indicator is dimensionless.

NOTES ON THE UARL AND ILI:

1. This Free Water Audit Software version 6 presents the calculated UARL and ILI for systems of all sizes and all pressures. Some published research is now available on predicting how UARL is likely to be modified when modeling low leakage limits in systems that are very small (< 3000 conn), or have very low average pressures, or have very high pressures (aka boundary cases). Inherent over- or under- estimation of UARL volume may exist in these boundary cases, as they operate at or near the limits of the UARL model assumptions. More widespread application and understanding of system specific corrections to the UARL model in these boundary cases is now likely to occur, but are not included in the FWAS at the time of this publication. Caution is advised when using the standard UARL modeled value (and subsequently the ILI) for boundary cases. In boundary cases, the ILI may still be considered a general Performance Indicator, but not used as an absolute performance measurement or for benchmark comparisons.

2. The UARL term is based on average operating pressure in a given audit year, and a utility's current pressure conditions may not be optimized. Thus, ILI should always be interpreted with some measure of pressure, and only used for tracking progress if all justifiable pressure management has already been completed.

All billed consumption which is calculated based on estimates or norms from water usage sites that have been determined by utility policy to be left unmetered.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 31
Item Name Description
Length of Mains
(Lm)

NON-REVENUE
WATER
Number of
Service
Connections
(Nc)
Real Losses
Revenue Water
Service
Connection
Density
Systematic Data
Handling Errors
(SDHE)
Total annual
operating cost
(optional input)
Physical water losses from the pressurized system (water mains and customer service connections) and the utility’s storage tanks, up to the point of customer consumption. In metered systems this is the customer meter, in unmetered situations this is the first point of consumption (stop tap/tap) within the property.

The annual volume lost through all types of leaks, breaks and overflows depends on frequencies, flow rates, and average duration of individual leaks, breaks and overflows.
*This input has been made optional, as it is no longer used in calculating a Performance Indicator. Auditors are welcome to continue to track this input as desired.* These costs include those for operations, maintenance and any annually incurred costs for long-term upkeep of the drinking water supply and distribution system. It should include the costs of day-to-day upkeep and long-term financing such as repayment of capital bonds for infrastructure expansion or improvement. Typical costs include employee salaries and benefits, materials, equipment, insurance, fees, administrative costs and all other costs that exist to sustain the drinking water supply. Depending upon water utility accounting procedures or regulatory agency requirements, it may be appropriate to include depreciation in the total of this cost. This cost should not include any costs to operate wastewater, biosolids or other systems outside of drinking water.

Apparent losses caused by accounting omissions, errant computer programming, gaps in policy, procedure, and permitting/activation of new accounts; and any type of data lapse that results in under-stated customer water consumption in summary billing reports. Systematic Data Handling Errors occur as a customer consumption volume and can result in a direct loss of revenue potential. Water utilities can find "lost" revenue by keying on this component.

Utilities typically measure water consumption volumes registered by water meters at customer premises. The meter should be read routinely (ex: monthly) and the data transferred to the Customer Billing System, which generates and sends a bill to the customer. Data Transfer Errors result in the registered consumption volume value being less than the actual consumption volume, creating an apparent loss. Such error might occur from illegible and mis-recorded hand-written readings compiled by meter readers, inputting an incorrect meter register unit conversion factor in the automatic meter reading equipment, or a variety of similar errors.

Apparent losses also occur from Data Analysis Errors in the archival and data reporting processes of the Customer Billing System. Inaccurate estimates used for accounts that fail to produce a meter reading are a common source of error. Billing adjustments may award customers a rightful monetary credit, but do so by creating a negative value of consumption volume, thus under-stating the actual consumption. Account activation lapses may allow new buildings to begin using water for months without meter readings and billing. Poor permitting and construction inspection practices can result in a new building water service commencing without a billing account, a water meter and meter reading; i.e., the customer is unknown to the utility's billing system. Close auditing of the permitting, metering, meter reading, billing and reporting processes of the water consumption data trail can uncover data management gaps that create volumes of systematic data handling error. Utilities should routinely analyze customer billing records to detect data anomalies and quantify these losses. For example, a billing account that registers zero consumption for two or more billing cycles should be checked to explain why usage has seemingly halted. Given the revenue loss impacts of these losses, water utilities are well-justified in providing continuous oversight and timely correction of data transfer errors & data handling errors.

If the water auditor has not yet gathered detailed data or assessment of systematic data handling error, it is recommended that the auditor apply the default value of 0.25% of the Billed Authorized Consumption volume. However, if the auditor has investigated the billing system and its controls, and has well validated data that indicates the volume from systematic data handling error is substantially higher or lower than that generated by the default value, then the auditor should enter a quantity that was derived from the utility investigations and select an appropriate grading. Negative or zero values are not allowed for this audit component.

Note: occasionally billed consumption volumes for a customer account may be over-stated due to issues of double-counting an account or applying an over- stated meter multiplier. The possibility of such occurrences should be explored in the data validation process, particularly if billed authorized consumption volumes for the year, or for any sub-group of customers (by classification or meter size), appears to be inordinately high. It is recommended to correct any such errors in the billed consumption total for the year, rather than consider these volumes part of Systematic Data Handling Error. =number of customer service connections / length of mains Length of all pipelines (except service connections) in the system starting from the point of system input metering (for example at the outlet of the treatment plant). It is also recommended to include in this measure the total length of fire hydrant lead pipe. Hydrant lead pipe is the pipe branching from the water main to the fire hydrant. Fire hydrant leads are typically of a sufficiently large size that is more representative of a pipeline than a service connection. The average length of hydrant leads across the entire system can be assumed if not known, and multiplied by the number of fire hydrants in the system, which can also be assumed if not known. This value can then be added to the total pipeline length. Total length of mains can therefore be calculated as:

Number of customer service connections, extending from the water main to supply water to a customer. This includes the actual number of pressurized piping connections, including fire connections, whether active or inactive. This may differ substantially from the number of customers (or number of accounts).

Note: this number does not include the pipeline leads to fire hydrants. The total length of piping supplying fire hydrants should be included in the "Length of mains" input, and excluded from the Number of service connections input.

UARL (gallons) = (5.41Lm + 0.15Nc + 7.5Lc) x P x 365 d/year, or
UARL (litres) = (18.0Lm + 0.8Nc + 25.0Lc) x P x 365 d/year where:

Lm = length of mains (miles or kilometres)
Nc = number of customer service connections
Lp = the average length of customer service connection piping (feet or metres) (see the Worksheet "Service Connection Diagram" for guidance on deterring the value of Lp) Lc = total length of customer service connection piping (miles or km) Lc = Nc X Lp (miles or kilometres)
P = Average operating pressure (psi or metres) (see Average Operating Pressure definition) NOTES ON THE UARL AND ILI:

Any kind of Authorized Consumption which is neither billed nor metered. This component typically includes water used in activities such as fire fighting, flushing of water mains and sewers, street cleaning, fire flow tests conducted by the water utility, etc. In most water utilities it is a small component.

This component does NOT include water supplied to neighboring utilities (water exported) which is unmetered and unbilled – an unlikely case. Also, if any potable water used at a water treatment plant is tapped from a location upstream of the meter(s) used to determine the Volume from Own Sources in the audit, this is outside of the boundary of the audit and should therefore not be included as part of Unbilled, Unmetered Authorized Consumption.

This component has many sub-components of water use which may not yet be quantified. The default is 0.25% of the Billed Authorized Consumption volume (BMAC + BUAC), and is recommended for temporary use if customized estimates are not yet available, with recommendation to begin tracking and estimating these volumes for the next audit.

Note that a value of zero is not permitted, since all water utilities likely have some volume of water in this component occurring in their system.

Units and
Conversions
All consumption that is unbilled, but still authorized by the utility. This includes Unbilled Metered Authorized Consumption (UMAC) + Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption (UUAC). See "Authorized Consumption" for more information.

Metered consumption which is authorized by the water utility, but, for any reason, is deemed by utility policy to be unbilled. This might for example include metered water consumed by the utility itself in treatment or distribution operations, or metered water provided to civic institutions free of charge. It does not include water supplied to neighboring utilities (water exported) which may be metered but not billed.

Includes water illegally withdrawn from fire hydrants, illegal connections, bypasses to customer consumption meters, or tampering with metering or meter reading equipment; as well as any other ways to receive water while thwarting the water utility's ability to collect revenue for the water. Unauthorized consumption results in uncaptured revenue and creates an error that understates customer consumption. In most water utilities this volume is low and, if the water auditor has not yet gathered detailed data for these loss occurrences, it is recommended to use the default value of 0.25% of the Billed Authorized Consumption volume. However, if the auditor has investigated unauthorized occurrences, and has well validated data that indicates the volume from unauthorized consumption is substantially higher or lower than that generated by the default value, then the auditor should enter a quantity that was derived from the utility investigations. Note that a value of zero will not be accepted since all water utilities tend to have some volume of unauthorized consumption occurring in their system.Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 33
Item Name Description
Convert From…
Million Gallons (US) = 306.888329 Acre-feet
Variable
Production Cost
(VPC)
(applied to Real
Losses)
Volume from Own
Sources
(VOS)
Volume from own
sources: error
adjustment
Water Exported
(WE)
Water Exported:

Error Adjustment
(WEEA)
Water Imported
(WI)
100
An estimate or measure of the volume by which the Water Exported volume is incorrect. This adjustment is a weighted average that represents the collective error for all of the metered and archived exported flow for all days of the audit year. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Error in the metered, archived data can also occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some degree of error in their metered data, particularly if meters are aged and infrequently tested. Occasional errors also occur in the archived data. Enter a positive percentage or volume, then select 'under-registration' or 'over-registration' from the drop-down immediately adjacent. If regular meter accuracy testing is conducted on the meter(s) - which is usually conducted by the water utility selling the water - then the results of this testing can be used to help quantify the meter error adjustment. Corrections to data gaps or other errors found in the archived data should also be included as a portion of this meter error adjustment. See Water Supplied Error Adjustments definition for guidance on how to calculate this input.

The cost to produce and supply the next unit of water (e.g., $/million gallons). This cost can include both short-run and long-run marginal costs. See the VPC data grading questions on IDG tab for examples of short-run and long-run marginal costs that may be included.

It is common to apply the VPC unit cost to the volume of Real Losses. However, if water resources are strained and the ability to meet future drinking water demands is in question, then the water auditor may be justified in applying the Customer Retail Unit Charge to the Real Loss volume, rather than applying the Variable Production Cost.

Water treatment plants are also often supplied potable drinking water and therefore are a “customer” of the water utility. If the service connection line serving the water treatment plant is downstream of treated water effluent flowmeters, this water should be metered and billed as billed authorized consumption. In this case, this volume of water does not enter into any calculations for Volume from Own Sources. If the service connection line suppling potable water to the treatment plant is upstream of treated water effluent flowmeters, then this water is considered “process” water and included with calculations accounting for process water use.

If metering exists only at the raw water source, an adjustment for water used in the treatment process should be included to account for water consumed in treatment operations such as filter backwashing, basin flushing and cleaning, plant potable water consumption (if the supply is drawn upstream of effluent flowmetering.) and similar uses. If the audit is conducted for a wholesale water agency that sells untreated water, then this quantity reflects the measure of the raw water, typically metered at the source.

The Water Imported volume is the bulk water purchased to become part of the Water Supplied volume. Typically this is water purchased from a neighboring water utility or regional water wholesale supplier, and is metered at the custody transfer point of interconnection between the two water utilities. Usually the meter(s) are owned by the water supplier selling the water to the utility conducting the water audit. The water supplier selling the bulk water usually charges the receiving utility based upon a wholesale water rate.

An estimate or measure of the degree of inaccuracy that exists in the master (production) meters measuring the annual Volume from own Sources, and any error in the data trail that exists to collect, store and report the summary production data. This adjustment is a weighted average number that represents the collective error for all master meters for all days of the audit year and any errors identified in the data trail. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter or meters may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Data error can occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some degree of inaccuracy in master meters and data errors in archival systems are common. Enter a positive percentage or volume, then select 'under-registration' or 'over-registration' from the drop-down immediately adjacent. See Water Supplied Error Adjustments definition for guidance on how to calculate this input.

The Water Exported volume is the bulk water conveyed or sold by the water utility to neighboring water systems that exists outside of their service area.

Typically this water is metered at the custody transfer point of interconnection between the two water utilities. Usually the meter(s) are owned by the water utility that is selling or transfering the water: i.e. the exporter. If the water utility who is compiling the annual water audit sells or transfers bulk water in this manner, they are an exporter of water.

Note: The Water Exported volume is typically sold to wholesale customers who are charged a wholesale rate that is different than retail rates charged to the retail customers existing within the service area. Many state regulatory agencies require that the Water Exported volume be reported to them as a quantity separate and distinct from the retail customer billed consumption. For these reasons - and others - the Water Exported volume is always quantified separately from Billed Authorized Consumption in the standard water audit. Be certain not to "double-count" this quantity by including it in both the Water Exported box and the Billed Metered Consumption box of the water audit Worksheet. This volume should be included only in the Water Exported box.

Enter Units:

Units and
Conversions
(conversion factor = 3.0689)
Converts to…..

If a default value is selected, the user does not need to grade the item; a grading value of 3 is automatically applied.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 34
Item Name Description
Water Imported:

Error Adjustment
(WIEA)
WATER LOSSES = apparent losses + real losses
= water supplied - authorized consumption
Water Losses are the difference between Water Supplied and Authorized Consumption. Water losses can be considered as a total volume for the whole system, or for partial systems such as transmission systems, pressure zones or district metered areas (DMA), if one of these configurations are the basis of the water audit.

An estimate or measure of the volume by which the Water Imported volume is incorrect. This adjustment is a weighted average that represents the collective error for all of the metered and archived imported flow for all days of the audit year. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Error in the metered, archived data can also occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some level of meter inaccuracy, particularly if meters are aged and infrequently tested. Occasional errors also occur in the archived metered data. Enter a positive percentage or volume, then select 'under-registration' or 'over-registration' from the drop-down immediately adjacent. If regular meter accuracy testing is conducted on the meter(s) - which is usually conducted by the water utility selling the water - then the results of this testing can be used to help quantify the meter error adjustment. See Water Supplied Error Adjustments definition for guidance on how to calculate this input.

Disclaimer: The guidance provided below should be considered general, representing a typical approach to determining Error Adjustment. Supply metering setups, metering technologies, instrumentation, data recording/archival, and data management systems can vary significantly from one water utility to the next.

Inherent margins of error will also vary among different testing and calibration methods and the measurement systems being tested. Other factors that may be important include, but are not limited to, frequency of testing and calibration practices, data communication outages in the audit period, tested flowrates versus typical operating flowrates, and test durations. All of these factors must be considered when assessing Error Adjustment for the Water Supplied inputs. Each specific situation should be carefully analyzed to determine the most appropriate approach for determining the Error Adjustment to input, if any.

General: For the Water Supplied inputs, there are three typical sources of error that may warrant an Error Adjustment on the Worksheet.

1. Meter error: measurement inaccuracy in the meter(s) used to derive the input volume, typically identified through in-situ flow accuracy testing. Applicable for VOS, WI and WE. If no such testing has been performed, adjustment for meter error is not typically recommended.

2. Data transfer error: inaccuracy in archived volumes, typically due to gaps in data, programming errors impacting unit conversions, and/or programming errors impacting totalization of measured volumes over the audit period. Applicable for VOS, WI and WE. These errors are typically identified through electronic calibration to verify data transfer at the secondary device (i.e. conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation) and/or the tertiary device (i.e. SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system).

3. Net distribution storage change: The difference between end of audit period and beginning of audit period for total finished water stored, downstream of the system input meter(s). Typically applicable for VOS or WI. This volume is typically derived by comparing distribution storage tank water levels at end and beginning of the water audit period and using approximate tank geometry to convert levels to volumes.

Derivation Guidance:

If an Error Adjustment input is being calculated as a volume, each source of error (described above) may be separately calculated, with careful consideration of under- vs over-registration, then added together to determine the composite volume to input. The composite input should be entered on the Worksheet as a positive number, then under- or over-registration selected on the adjacent dropdown.

If an Error Adjustment input is being calculated as a percent, some very general guidance for calculating each error source (described above) is provided below. The auditor is again cautioned that each specific water supply setup needs to be evaluated closely as noted in the Disclaimer. Refer to the latest AWWA M36 Manual for additional discussion and guidance on this matter.

1. Meter error: If in-situ flow accuracy testing has been performed, and inherent testing method error is understood, first the meter accuracy % may be determined as follows:
meter accuracy % = System input meter(s) volume / Reference volume Then, the meter error % may be determined as follows:
meter error % = meter accuracy % - 100%

2. Data transfer error: If electronic calibration at the secondary (i.e. conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation) and/or tertiary (i.e. SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system) devices has been performed, first the data transfer accuracy % may be determined as follows:
data transfer accuracy % = Tertiary device volume / Reference volume (typically at Secondary device)

Then, the data transfer error % may be determined as follows:
data transfer error % = data transfer accuracy % - 100% If no error is identified, or if electronic calibration has not been performed, or if no secondary or tertiary devices exist, a data transfer error % adjustment is not typically recommended.

3. Net distribution storage change. If meter error and/or data transfer error are being calculated as a %, it is recommended to make the adjustment for net distribution storage change as a volume adjustment, directly in the VOS or WI input, as applicable.

The final step is to add meter error % and data transfer error %:

Error Adjustment % = meter accuracy % + data transfer error % If the total Error Adjustment % calculates out as a negative number, it represents an under-registration. Vice versa, if positive. The composite input should be entered on the Worksheet as a positive number, then under- or over-registration selected on the adjacent dropdown.

Water Supplied
Error
Adjustments
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 35
#REF!
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Figure 2 shows the
configuration of the customer
water meter located inside the
customer building, where Lp is
the distance from the curb stop
to the water meter.

Figure 3 shows the
configuration of an unmetered
customer building , where Lp is
the distance from the curb stop
to the first point of customer
water consumption, or, more
simply, the building line.

American Water Works Association.

Copyright © 2020, All Rights
FWAS v6.0
Click for more
information
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Service Connection Diagram 36 DEVELOPED BY: Will Jernigan, PE Software Chair Cavanaugh David Sayers Black & Veatch
Kate Gasner Water Systems Optimization
George Kunkel, PE Kunkel Water Efficiency Consulting
Andrew Chastain-Howley, PG, MCSM Black & Veatch
REFERENCES:

A special thanks to those members of the AWWA Water Loss Control Committee and other water industry stakeholders who assisted in the review and testing of this software.

2. Kunkel, G. et al. AWWA WLCC Reference Water Audit Dataset . 2020. AWWA. Denver, CO. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/ec13ae01-7800-4114-8d72-98827b509e18/Good%20Practices%20on%20Leakage%20Management%20-%20Case%20Study%20document._Final.pdf

4. Trachtman G., A. Wyatt, et al. 2019. Assessment of Performance Indicator for Non-Revenue Water Target Setting and Progress Tracking . AWWA. Denver, CO.

5. Trachtman G., A. Wyatt, et al. 2019. WRF 4695: Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Plan . Water Research Foundation. Denver, CO.

6. Lambert, A. 2020. Low ILIs and Small Systems. Llandudno, UK. https://leakssuitelibrary.com

7. Good Practices on Leakage Management, Main Report . EU Reference Document. European Commission, Luxembourg. 2015.

8. Service Connection Diagrams courtesy of Ronnie McKenzie, WRP Pty Ltd.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Acknowledgements
AWWA Free Water Audit Software - Version 6.0
developed by the
Water Loss Control Committee of the American Water Works Association December 2020
This software is intended to serve as a basic tool to compile a preliminary, or “top-down”, water audit. It is recommended that users also refer to the current edition of the AWWA M36 Publication, Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, for detailed guidance on compiling a comprehensive, or “bottom-up”, water audit using the same water audit methodology.

1. Kunkel, G., G. Trachtman, A. Wyatt, and W. Jernigan. Water Loss Control Committee Report: Key Performance Indicators for Non-Revenue Water—AWWA’s 2020 Position . 2020.

Journal AWWA. https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/awwa.1428

3. AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, M36 Publication. 5th Edition, (forthcoming) 2021. AWWA. Denver, CO.

9. Sturm, R., W. Jernigan, C. Stief, and D. Blackwell. Level 1 Water Audit Validation Guidance Manual. 2nd Edition, (forthcoming) 2021. Project #5057. Denver: Water Research Foundation.
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/1ddfba34-e1ce-4888-b031-6c559cb28e47/Good%20Practices%20on%20Leakage%20Management%20-%20Main%20Report_Final.pdf American Water Works Association.

FWAS v6.0
www.awwa.org
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 37 VERSION HISTORY:

Version: Release
Date:

Number of
Worksheets:
v1 2005/
2006 5
v2 2006 5
v3 2007 7
v4 - v4.2 2010 10
v5 2014 12
v6 2020 11
If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at: [email protected] v6 brings an overhaul to the user interface for data grading, now presented as a series of questions on the Interactive Data Grading (IDG) tab for each input that, when answered (by selecting best-fit answer from a dropdown menu), automically determines the data grade for the given input. This provides transparency to the data practices selected and which specifically are limiting, removes subjectivity in data grade assignments, and provides clarity on candidate next steps for data validity improvements. IDG tab includes navigation buttons across top banner for ease of movement between inputs, and color signals for completion. The Worksheet (fka Reporting Worksheet) includes overt designation of error adjustment as "under" or "over" for the 3 Water Supplied inputs, as well as Customer Metering Inaccuracies. This makes the convention consistent, transparent, and reduces chance of user error. A Blank Sheet has been added allowing the user to, as desired, perform supplemental calculations or capture additional relevant information. The Dashboard has been overhauled to include Data Validity, NRW Components and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). KPIs are presented in gauge format, depicting the specific KPI result against the range of results from Level 1 validated data in North America (see Web Resources, Start Page). Percentage-based indicators (% of supply, % of cost) removed as these indicators were deemed unreliable and sunset by the AWWA Water Loss Control Committee, subsequent to research and reporting from its NRW Performance Indicators Task Force.

In v5, changes were made to the way Water Supplied information is entered into software, with each major component having a corresponding Master Meter Error Adjustment entry (and data grading requirement). This required changes to the data validity score calculation; v5 of the software uses a weighting system that is, in part, proportional to the volume of input components. The Grading Matrix was updated to reflect the new audit inputs and also to include clarifications and additions to the scale descriptions. The appearance of the software was updated in v5 to make the software more user-friendly and several new features were added to provide more feedback to the user. Notably, a dashboard tab has been added to provide more visual feedback on the water audit results and associated costs of Non-Revenue Water. A comments sheet was added to allow the user to track notes, comments and to cite sources used.

In v3, the option to report volumetric units in acre-feet was added. Another new feature in v3 was the inclusion of default values for two water audit components (unbilled unmetered and unauthorized consumption). v3 also included two examples of completed audits in units of million gallons and Megalitres. Several checks were added into v3 to provide instant feedback to the user on common data entry problems, in order to help the user complete an accurate water audit. v4 (and versions 4.x) of the software included a new approach to data grading. The simple "estimated" or "measured" approach was replaced with a more granular scale (typically 1-10) that reflected descriptions of utility practices and served to describe the confidence and accuracy of the input data. Each input value had a corresponding scale fully described in the Grading Matrix tab. The Grading Matrix also showed the actions required to move to a higher grading score. Grading descriptions were available on the Reporting Worksheet via a pop-up box next to each water audit input. A water audit data validity score is generated (max = 100) and priority areas for attention (to improve audit accuracy) are identified, once a user completes the requied data grading. A service connection diagram was also added to help users understand the impact of customer service line configurations on water losses and how this information should be entered into the water audit software. An acknoweldgements section was also added. Minor bug fixes resulted in the release of versions 4.1 and

4.2. A French language version was also made available for v4.2.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 38 AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 39

Data Grading Matrix v6.0
Example Water Audit v6.0
Water Audit Compiler v6.0
AWWA Reports on Performance Indicators
M36 Manual
If you have questions or comments regarding this software please contact us at: [email protected] Retail
Potable Water
custom 75.000
volume 25.000
default
CA3010053
Rachel Davis
Use acronym buttons in IDG header to navigate among inputs. Acronym Key above.

White = needs answers, orange = complete, clear = not required. Example below. 200,000
[email protected]
choose entry option:

Worksheet
Limiting
Choosing to enter default or custom input
(applies to UUAC, SDHE, UC)
choose entry option:

0.25%
Interactive Data Grading
After clicking an acronym button, answer all visible questions in the order they're presented, choosing best-fit answer
Dashboard
Notes
Acknowledgements for development of the AWWA Free
Water Audit Software v6.0.

Acknowledge-
ments
By popular demand! A blank sheet.

The world is your canvas.

The values entered in the Worksheet automatically
populate the Water Balance.

Use this sheet to interpret the results of the audit validity score and performance indicators.

Use this sheet to understand the terms used in the audit process.

Diagrams depicting possible customer service connection line configurations.

Definitions
Service
Connection
Diagram
Choosing to enter unit of percent or volume
(applies to VOSEA, WIEA, WEEA, CMI)
Enter the required data on this worksheet to calculate the water balance and data grading.

Start Page
Blank Sheet
Worksheet
Answer questions about operational practices for each
audit input, and the data validity grades will automatically populate.

Review NRW components, performance indicators and
graphical outputs to evaluate the results of the audit.

Enter notes to explain how values were calculated,
document data sources, and related information about
data management practices.

Interactive Data
Grading
714-374-1641
Huntington Beach
USA
Acre-feet
Nov 08 2024
California (CA)
Dec 31 2023
Jan 01 2023
Calendar
2023
American Water Works Association Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved.

FWAS v6.0
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Start Page 1
Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER SUPPLIED choose entry option:

VOS Volume from Own Sources: n g 7 19,390.900 Acre-ft/Yr n g 8 percent acre-ft/yr under-registration VOSEA WI Water Imported: n g 6 3,526.300 Acre-ft/Yr n g percent acre-ft/yr select….. WIEA WE Water Exported: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr n g n/a percent acre-ft/yr select….. WEEA 22,917.200 Acre-ft/Yr
.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
BMAC Billed Metered: n g 9 22,095.379 Acre-ft/Yr
BUAC Billed Unmetered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr
UMAC Unbilled Metered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr choose entry option:

UUAC Unbilled Unmetered: n g 3 55.238 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr24061 Default option selected for Unbilled Unmetered, with automatic data grading of 3 22,150.617 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES 766.583 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 choose entry option:

SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 55.238 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 6 55.377 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% percent acre-ft/yr under-registration UC Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 55.238 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3 165.854 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses
600.729 Acre-ft/Yr
766.583 Acre-ft/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
821.821 Acre-ft/Yr

SYSTEM DATA
Lm Length of mains: n g 10 558.5 miles (including fire hydrant lead lengths) Nc Number of service connections: n g 8 54,363 (active and inactive) Service connection density: 97 conn./mile main
Yes
Lp Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10 ft (average distance between property line and meter) AOP Average Operating Pressure: n g 8 70.3 psi

COST DATA
CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge: n g 10 $2.39
VPC Variable Production Cost: n g 8 $773.69 $/acre-ft $/yr (optional input) WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER:
go to
dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:

Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components: OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) Unit Total Losses: gal/conn/day 2: Unauthorized Consumption (UC) Unit Apparent Losses: gal/conn/day 3: Systematic Data Handling Errors (SDHE) Unit Real LossesA: gal/conn/day Unit Real LossesB: gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard) go to start page
NON-REVENUE WATER:

If entering an
Error Adjustment,
select under- or over-
registration

3.000
WATER SUPPLIED:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:

Apparent Losses:

Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier IV (71-90). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. *** $/100 cubic feet (ccf)
$28,957,747
Total Annual Operating Cost
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Worksheet
City of Huntington Beach
Jan 01 2023 - Dec 31 2023
Water Supplied Error Adjustments
Calendar2023
Real Losses:

WATER LOSSES:

Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
Click 'n' to add notes
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

To access definitions, click the input name
To edit water system info:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Worksheet 2
Interactive Data Grading Responses
2023
go to notes
vos Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vos.0 Did the water utility supply any water from its own sources during the audit year? Yes vos.1 What percent of own supply volume is metered? >99% vos.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration? Annually Limiting vos.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process? Data transfer errors are checked at secondary device(s), but not to tertiary device(s) Limiting vos.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available for review? Yes vos.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? None, or Not within last 5 years Limiting vos.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available for review? vos.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
vos.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? Yes vos.9 Which best describes the frequency of finished water meter readings? Continuous vos.10
Which best describes the frequency of data review for anomalies/errors? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

More frequently than monthly, but not every day
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT: 7
go to input Volume from Own Sources (VOS) - Data Grading Criteria Limiting
criteria
(see Start
Page for
details)
For questions 2-10 below: Choose the answer that applies for those meters that measure >90% of the finished water volume.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Interactive Data Grading 6 CMI
3SDHE
3 UC
9 BMAC
n/a UMAC
n/aBUAC
n/aWEEA
n/aWE
WIEA
7VOS
8 VOSEA
6 WI
8 AOP
10Lm
8 Nc
10 Lp
10 CRUC
8 VPC
Use acronyms for navigation
Orange = complete
FWAS v6.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved. 3 UUAC
White = incomplete
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 3 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
vosea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vosea.1 Are tank levels monitored automatically & recorded daily? Yes vosea.2 Are daily changes of stored water volumes in distribution system tanks included in the tabulation of the daily "Volume from Own Sources" quantity? No Limiting vosea.3 Is the annual net distribution storage change included in either the VOS input or the VOSEA input? No
vosea.4 Are the flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results included in the VOSEA input in the water audit? Yes, results are analyzed and a 'no-adjustment' was determined FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT: 8
go to input Volume from Own Sources Error Adjustment (VOSEA) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 4 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
wi Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions wi.0 Did the water utility import any water during the audit year? Yes wi.1 What percent of water imported is metered? >99%
wi.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration? At least semi-annually wi.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process? Data transfer errors are checked at secondary device(s) AND tertiary device(s) wi.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available? Yes wi.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? None, or Not within last 5 years wi.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available? wi.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
wi.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? Yes wi.9 Which best describes the frequency of meter readings (data collection frequency as opposed to billing frequency)? Continuous
wi.10
What is the frequency of data review & correction by Exporting or Importing Utility for data gaps and/or anomalies? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

Once per month Limiting
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
6 go to input Water Imported (WI) - Data Grading Criteria For questions 2-10 below: Choose the answer that applies for those meters that measure >90% of the water imported volume.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 5 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
wiea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions wiea.1 Is an agreement in place between Exporting and Importing Utility for the purchase of water? Yes, written
wiea.2 Are meter accuracy testing or electronic calibration requirements stipulated in the water purchase agreement?
wiea.3 Are flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results used to inform the error adjustment input in the water audit? Yes, results are analyzed and a 'no-adjustment' was determined wiea.4 Who has access to the import meter readings including current and archived data? Exporting and Importing Utility FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
go to input Water Imported Error Adjustment (WIEA) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 6 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
we Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions we.0 Did the water utility export any water during the audit year? No we.1 What percent of water exported is metered?
we.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration?
we.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process?
we.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available? we.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? we.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available? we.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
we.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? we.9 Which best describes the frequency of meter readings (data collection frequency as opposed to billing frequency)?
we.10
What is the frequency of data review & correction by Exporting or Importing Utility for data gaps and/or anomalies? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
go to input Water Exported (WE) - Data Grading Criteria For questions 2-10 below: Choose the answer that applies for those meters that measure >90% of the water exported volume.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 7 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
weea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions weea.1 Is an agreement in place between Exporting and Importing Utility? weea.2 Are meter accuracy testing or electronic calibration requirements stipulated in the water purchase agreement?
weea.3 Are flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results used to inform the error adjustment input in the water audit?
weea.4 Who has access to the import meter readings including current and archived data? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
go to input Water Exported Error Adjustment (WEEA) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 8 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
bmac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions bmac.0 Were any customers metered in the audit year? Yes bmac.1 For billed metered accounts, what % of bills are estimated in a typical billing cycle? 5% or less bmac.2
How often does the utility read its customer meters?
For systems with multiple read frequencies, select the reading frequency that describes the majority of your customers.

Monthly Limiting
bmac.3 Is the BMAC volume pro-rated to represent consumption occuring exactly during the audit period? Yes
bmac.4 How frequently does internal review by utility staff of the BMAC volumes occur? Every billing cycle bmac.5 What level of detail is examined in the internal review of BMAC volumes? Totals grouped by use type or customer class and specific accounts flagged for anomalous consumption bmac.6 When was the most recent billing data review by someone who is independent of the utility billing process? Within last 3 years
bmac.7 What level of detail was examined in the review by someone who is independent of the utility billing process? Full billing database query and analysis of raw data to verify the summary consumption volumes FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
9 go to input Billed Metered Authorized Consumption (BMAC) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 9 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
buac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions buac.0 Was there any billed consumption on unmetered accounts in the audit year? No buac.1 What portion of billed accounts are unmetered (% by number of accounts)? buac.2 Methodology to quantify consumption for unmetered accounts? buac.3 How frequently is unmetered customer consumption estimated? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
go to input Billed Unmetered Authorized Consumption (BUAC) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 10 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
umac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions umac.0 Did the water utility have any unbilled-metered consumption in the audit year? No umac.1 Does the water utility policy articulate which accounts are exempt from billing? umac.2 How many unbilled metered accounts exist?
umac.3
How often is each unbilled customer meter read?
For systems with multiple read frequencies, select the reading frequency that describes the majority of your customers.
umac.4 How often are unbilled metered volumes reviewed for error? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
go to input Unbilled Metered Authorized Consumption (UMAC) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 11 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
uuac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions uuac.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered uuac.1 How well-understood is the extent of unbilled unmetered use? uuac.2 Which best describes the records that are kept for events of unbilled unmetered use?
uuac.3 How is the majority of unbilled unmetered use estimated? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 go to input Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption (UUAC) - Data Grading Criteria This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 12 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
sdhe Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions sdhe.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered sdhe.1 Which best describes how the input was derived?
sdhe.2 Which best describes validation performed in the billing software for multipliers (conversions between unit of meter reading and unit of billing)? sdhe.3 Which best describes the policy for new service accounts to ensure there is no lapse between start of customer water usage and start of measurement/billing? sdhe.4 Which best describes auditing that takes place on the billing process? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 go to input Systematic Data Handling Error (SDHE) - Data Grading Criteria This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 13 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
cmi Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions cmi.0 Was there any metered customer usage during the audit period? Yes cmi.1 Do you test meters reactively (when triggered by customer complaint or billing/consumption flag)? Reactive testing conducted
cmi.2
For small size customer meters, which best describes the frequency of proactive testing (effort beyond when triggered by customer complaint or billing/consumption flags)?
Recurring, within two years of the audit period
cmi.3 Which best describes what meters are included in the proactive small size customer meter testing activities? Testing targeted to subsets of meters ie oldest meters cmi.4 For mid and large size customer meters, which best describes the frequency of the proactive testing program? Recurring, within 5 years prior to audit period, but less frequently than annually cmi.5 Which best describes what meters are included in the proactive mid- and large customer meter testing activities? Testing targeted to subsets of meters (ie most revenue generating or customer types) cmi.6 Which best describes how the input was derived? Meter accuracy test results or manufacturer specs are referenced but not analyzed and used directly in calculation Limiting cmi.7 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
cmi.8 To what extent does meter replacement occur and for which meters? Replacement upon complete failure or special circumstance (as needed) cmi.9 Which best describes the reliability of meter installation records? Records are kept for meter installations, and they include data on installation date, type, size, and manufacturer FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
6 go to input Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 14 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
uc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions uc.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered uc.1 Which best describes how the input was derived?
uc.2 Which best describes the extent of unauthorized consumption tracking and oversight?
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 go to input
This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet Unauthorized Consumption (UC) - Data Grading Criteria
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 15 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Lm Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Lm.1 How was the input derived? Derived directly from Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) Lm.2 Are hydrant laterals included in the input derivation? Yes Lm.3 Which best describes how the Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) is kept up to date? Additions or subtractions are updated in the mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc), at least annually Lm.4 Which best describes how the Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) is field validated to confirm field conditions match the inventory? Field validation is accomplished (i.e. in daily operations or specific validation projects) FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 go to input Length of Mains (Lm) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 16 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Nc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Nc.1 How was the input derived? Extracted from Services inventory (GIS, billing system, etc) Nc.2 What is the count of services based on? Non-premise based, i.e. meter count, customer count Limiting Nc.3 Are inactive (but still pressurized) service lines included in the input? These may be metered or unmetered. Yes
Nc.4 Which best describes how the inventory of service connections (GIS, billing system, etc) is kept up to date? Additions or subtractions are updated in the service line inventory (GIS, billing system, etc), at least annually Nc.5 Which best describes how the inventory of service connections (GIS, billing system, etc) is field validated to confirm field conditions match the inventory? Field validation is accomplished for the entire system (i.e. in daily operations or specific validation projects) FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
8 go to input Number of Service Connections (Nc) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 17 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Lp Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Lp.0 Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Yes Lp.1 How was the input derived?
Lp.2 Which best describes how the Customer Service Line and Meter Locations mapping is kept up to date?
Lp.3 Which best describes how the Customer Service Line mapping is validated to what is in the field?
Lp.4 Which best describes the policy to define where the utility's ownership of the service line ends, and the customer's ownership of the service line begins? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 go to input Average Length of (Private) Customer Service Line (Lp) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 18 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
aop Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions aop.1 Which best describes checks on the boundary integrity for the system's pressure zone(s)? Normally-closed boundary valves between zones have been confirmed within the past 3 years to be fully closed aop.2 Which best describes how one-time pressure readings (i.e. from hydrants) are collected? Collected only if there are low pressure complaints, or new development requests Limiting aop.3 Which best describes where continuous pressure data (via temporary data loggers or permanent telemetry) is collected? At zone boundary conditions, plus some locations inside the zone(s) but not representing the full pressure profile aop.4 Which best describes how continuous pressure data is collected? Year-round data collection via permanent monitoring aop.5 How was the input derived? Derived from hydraulic model, where model has not been field calibrated in the last 5 years FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
8 go to input Average Operating Pressure (AOP) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 19 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
cruc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions cruc.0 Was any metered consumption billed on a volumetric basis in the audit period? Yes cruc.1 Which best describes the use and reliability of the current rate structure? Customer bill calculations have been checked to confirm the rate structure is correctly implemented cruc.2 Choose the option that best describes how the input was derived A volume-weighted average of all rates was calculated cruc.3 Is there any additional volumetric revenue the utility receives that depends on water meter readings, such as sewer? No
cruc.4 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 go to input Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 20 of 39 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
vpc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vpc.1 Choose the option that best describes how the input was derived Multiple sources of water exist, and a volume-weighted average was calculated for all sources vpc.2
Choose the option that best describes which short-run marginal costs have been included in the input, using the definitions below for reference. Short-run marginal costs can include the following:
- chemicals + power for treatment, typically applicable if the utility is producing/treating water
- power for distribution, typically applicable if pumps exist in the distribution network - water acquisition costs, typically applicable if the utility is purchasing water or incurs any extraction costs for withdrawing from a source
Some short-run marginal costs may not be applicable. The auditor should analyze the system characteristics to determine which costs are applicable for inclusion in the VPC input derivation. See also the latest AWWA M36 Manual for further guidance.

Long-run marginal costs have not been evaluated for applicability, and are not included Limiting vpc.4 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT: 8
go to input Variable Production Cost (VPC) - Data Grading Criteria AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 21 of 39 0 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Dashboard
Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Audit Year: Calendar Jan 01 2023 - Dec 31 2023 Actual KPI result Target (see Worksheet)
1 US$ = Local
Data Validity Score: Data Validity Tier: enter current conversion rate for local currency Tier II (26-50) Tier III (51-70)
Tier IV (71-90)
Tier I (≤25)
Tier V (91-100)
Total Loss Cost Rate Apparent Loss Cost Rate Real Loss Cost Rate $/conn/year $/conn/year $/conn/year
NRW Components Summary
Unit Total Losses Unit Apparent Losses Unit Real LossesA gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/conn/day
Average Operating Pressure
psi
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) Unit Real LossesB
dimensionless gal/mile/day
See UARL definition for additional guidance on the ILI
Real Losses Unauthorized Consumption Acre-ft/Yr gal/conn/day Systematic Data Handling Errors Unbilled Unmetered Auth Cons Customer Metering Inaccuracies Unbilled Metered Authorized Cons Apparent Losses
Real Losses
Unbilled Authorized Cons
Non-Revenue Water
0 Blended

55.2 821.8
$172,668
$464,778
$42,737
$680,183
165.9
600.7 VPC
Volume Value
Acre-ft/Yr $/Yr
(UARL) Unavoidable Annual Real Losses
result is below
10th %ile
880.1 14.5
VPC
9600.7
result is below
10th %ile

9.9 70.3
CRUC
Basis of Valuation

11.73 12.6

3.18 2.7
result is below
10th %ile

8.55 go to referencesgo to worksheet go to grading
2023
Tier IV (71-90)74
Data Validity
gauge %iles per validated industry ranges2

0.737
Loss Control Planning for Tier DetailsSee
Key Performance Indicators
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Volume (Acre-ft/Yr)
Total Volume of NRW = 822 Acre-
ft/Yr
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
Total Cost of NRW =
$680,183/Yr
10th %ile
25th %ile
Median
75th %ile
90th %ile
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
American Water Works Association.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Dashboard 23
Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Calendar Audit Year: 2023 Jan 01 2023 - Dec 31 2023
General Notes:

Audit Item Notes on Input Derivation Notes on Data Validity Grading go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
Water Imported
(WI)
Water Imported
Error Adjustment
(WIEA)
Water Exported
(WE)
Volume from
Own Sources
Error Adjustment
(VOSEA)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

User Notes
Volume from
Own Sources
(VOS)
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

Billed Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(BUAC)
Unbilled Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(UMAC)
Unbilled
Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(UUAC)
Systematic Data
Handling Errors
(SDHE)
Customer
Metering
Inaccuracies
(CMI)
Water Exported
Error Adjustment
(WEIA)
Billed Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(BMAC)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Notes 25
Audit Item Notes on Input Derivation Notes on Data Validity Grading go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
Customer Retail
Unit Charge
(CRUC)
Variable
Production Cost
(VPC)
Unauthorized
Consumption
(UC)
Length of Mains
(Lm)
Number of
Service
Connections
(Nc)
Average Length of
(private)
Customer
Service Line
(Lp)
Average
Operating
Pressure
(AOP)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Notes 26
Hello, I am a blank sheet, at your service.

2.3%
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0
Water Balance Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year: 2023 Jan 01 2023 - Dec 31 2023
Data Validity Tier: Tier IV (71-90)
Water Exported
(WE)
(corrected for known
errors)
Revenue Water
(Exported)

0.000 0.000
Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC)
(water exported is removed) Revenue Water
22,095.379
22,095.379 Billed Unmetered Consumption (BUAC) 22,095.379

0.000
22,150.617 Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC)

0.000
19,390.900 55.238 Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC)

55.238
Water Supplied Systematic Data Handling Errors (SDHE) 821.821 22,917.200 Apparent Losses 55.238
22,917.200 165.854 Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI)

55.377
Unauthorized Consumption (UC)
Water Losses 55.238
766.583 Leakage on Transmission and/or Distribution
Mains
Real Losses Not broken down
3,526.300 600.729 Leakage and Overflows at Utility's Storage Tanks
Not broken down
Leakage on Service Connections
Not broken down
Water Imported (WI)
(corrected for known
errors)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software
Non-Revenue Water
(NRW)
Billed Authorized Consumption
Unbilled Authorized Consumption
(corrected for known
errors)
City of Huntington Beach
Billed Water Exported
Volume from Own
Sources (VOS)
System Input
Volume
Authorized
Consumption
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Water Balance 28 Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year: 2023
Data Validity Tier:

Functional Focus
Area
Audit Data Collection
Short-term loss control
Long-term loss control
Target-setting
Benchmarking
City of Huntington Beach
Water Loss Control Planning Guide
Establish/revise policies and procedures
for data collection
Refine data collection practices and
establish as routine business process
Annual water audit is a reliable gauge of
year-to-year water efficiency standing
Tier III (51-70) Tier IV (71-90)
Water Audit Data Validity Tier (Score Range)
Tier I (1-25)
Tier IV (71-90)
Jan 01 2023 - Dec 31 2023
Evaluate and refine loss control goals on
a yearly basis
Begin to assess long-term needs
requiring large expenditure: customer
meter replacement, water main
replacement program, new customer
billing system or AMR/AMI system
Begin to assemble economic business
case for long-term needs based upon
improved data becoming available
through the water audit process
Conduct detailed planning, budgeting
and launch of comprehensive
improvements for metering, billing or
infrastructure management
Continue incremental improvements in
short-term and long-term loss control
interventions
Establish long-term apparent and real
loss reduction goals (+10 year horizon)
Establish mid-range (5 year horizon)
apparent and real loss reduction goals
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Determining Water Loss Standing
For validity scores of 50 or below, the shaded blocks should not be focus areas until better data validity is achieved.

FWAS v6.0
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Loss Control Planning 29 Item Name
Apparent
Losses

AUTHORIZED

CONSUMPTION
Average Length
of (private)
Customer Service
Line
(Lp)
Average
Operating
Pressure
(AOP)
Billed Authorized
Consumption
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Typical retail customers' consumption is tabulated usually from established customer accounts as billed metered consumption, or - for unmetered customers - billed unmetered consumption. These types of consumption, along with billed water exported, provide revenue potential for the water utility. Typically a lag will exist between timing for reading of supply meters and reading of customer meters. A lag-time correction should typically be calculated to account for this. Be certain to tabulate the water exported volume as a separate component and do not "double-count" it by including in the billed metered consumption component as well as the water exported component.

Unbilled authorized consumption occurs typically in non-account uses, including water for fire fighting and training, flushing of water mains and sewers, street cleaning, watering of municipal gardens, public fountains, or similar public-minded uses. Occasionally these uses may be metered and billed (or charged a flat fee), but usually they are unmetered and unbilled. In the latter case, the water auditor may use a default value to estimate this quantity, or implement procedures for the reliable quantification of these uses. This starts with documenting usage events as they occur and estimating the amount of water used in each event. (See Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption) This is the average length of underground customer service line, Lp, that is owned and maintained by the customer; from the point of ownership transfer to the customer water meter, or building line (if unmetered). The quantity is one of the data inputs for the calculation of Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL), which serves as the denominator of the performance indicator: Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI). The value of Lp is multiplied by the number of customer service connections to obtain a total length of customer owned piping in the system. The purpose of this parameter is to account for the unmetered service line infrastructure that is the responsibility of the customer for arranging repairs of leaks that occur on their lines. In many cases leak repairs arranged by customers take longer to be executed than leak repairs arranged by the water utility on utility-maintained piping. Leaks run longer - and lose more water - on customer-owned service piping, than utility owned piping.

If the auditor selects "Yes" then this distance is set to zero and the data grading score for this component is set to 10.

NOTE: Over-estimation of Apparent Losses results in under-estimation of Real Losses. Under-estimation of Apparent Losses results in over-estimation of Real Losses.

A
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

Note: the Free Water Audit Software allows the user to select the units that are charged to customers (either $/1,000 gallons, $/hundred cubic feet, or $/1,000 litres) and automatically converts these units for purpose of calculating Apparent Loss valuations. The monetary units are United States dollars, $.

The ratio of the Current Annual Real Losses (Real Losses) to the Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). This performance indicator is dimensionless.

NOTES ON THE UARL AND ILI:

All billed consumption which is calculated based on estimates or norms from water usage sites that have been determined by utility policy to be left unmetered.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 31
Item Name Description
Length of Mains
(Lm)

NON-REVENUE
WATER
Number of
Service
Connections
(Nc)
Real Losses
Revenue Water
Service
Connection
Density
Systematic Data
Handling Errors
(SDHE)
Total annual
operating cost
(optional input)
= Apparent Losses + Real Losses + Unbilled Metered Consumption + Unbilled Unmetered Consumption. This is water which does not provide revenue potential to the utility.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 32
Item Name Description
Unauthorized
Consumption
(UC)
Unbilled
Authorized
Consumption
Unbilled Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(UMAC)
Unbilled
Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(UUAC)
Includes water illegally withdrawn from fire hydrants, illegal connections, bypasses to customer consumption meters, or tampering with metering or meter reading equipment; as well as any other ways to receive water while thwarting the water utility's ability to collect revenue for the water. Unauthorized consumption results in uncaptured revenue and creates an error that understates customer consumption. In most water utilities this volume is low and, if the water auditor has not yet gathered detailed data for these loss occurrences, it is recommended to use the default value of 0.25% of the Billed Authorized Consumption volume. However, if the auditor has investigated unauthorized occurrences, and has well validated data that indicates the volume from unauthorized consumption is substantially higher or lower than that generated by the default value, then the auditor should enter a quantity that was derived from the utility investigations. Note that a value of zero will not be accepted since all water utilities tend to have some volume of unauthorized consumption occurring in their system.

Unavoidable
Annual Real
Losses (UARL)
The UARL is a theoretical reference value representing the technical low limit of leakage for well managed systems in good condition, with aggressive active leakage control. It is a key variable in the calculation of the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI).

UARL (gallons) = (5.41Lm + 0.15Nc + 7.5Lc) x P x 365 d/year, or
UARL (litres) = (18.0Lm + 0.8Nc + 25.0Lc) x P x 365 d/year where:

Note that a value of zero is not permitted, since all water utilities likely have some volume of water in this component occurring in their system.

Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 33
Item Name Description
Convert From…
Million Gallons (US) = 306.888329 Acre-feet
Variable
Production Cost
(VPC)
(applied to Real
Losses)
Volume from Own
Sources
(VOS)
Volume from own
sources: error
adjustment
Water Exported
(WE)
Water Exported:

Error Adjustment
(WEEA)
Water Imported
(WI)
Enter Units:

Units and
Conversions
(conversion factor = 3.0689)
Converts to…..
100
An estimate or measure of the volume by which the Water Exported volume is incorrect. This adjustment is a weighted average that represents the collective error for all of the metered and archived exported flow for all days of the audit year. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Error in the metered, archived data can also occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some degree of error in their metered data, particularly if meters are aged and infrequently tested. Occasional errors also occur in the archived data. Enter a positive percentage or volume, then select 'under-registration' or 'over-registration' from the drop-down immediately adjacent. If regular meter accuracy testing is conducted on the meter(s) - which is usually conducted by the water utility selling the water - then the results of this testing can be used to help quantify the meter error adjustment. Corrections to data gaps or other errors found in the archived data should also be included as a portion of this meter error adjustment. See Water Supplied Error Adjustments definition for guidance on how to calculate this input.

The Water Imported volume is the bulk water purchased to become part of the Water Supplied volume. Typically this is water purchased from a neighboring water utility or regional water wholesale supplier, and is metered at the custody transfer point of interconnection between the two water utilities. Usually the meter(s) are owned by the water supplier selling the water to the utility conducting the water audit. The water supplier selling the bulk water usually charges the receiving utility based upon a wholesale water rate.

An estimate or measure of the degree of inaccuracy that exists in the master (production) meters measuring the annual Volume from own Sources, and any error in the data trail that exists to collect, store and report the summary production data. This adjustment is a weighted average number that represents the collective error for all master meters for all days of the audit year and any errors identified in the data trail. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter or meters may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Data error can occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some degree of inaccuracy in master meters and data errors in archival systems are common. Enter a positive percentage or volume, then select 'under-registration' or 'over-registration' from the drop-down immediately adjacent. See Water Supplied Error Adjustments definition for guidance on how to calculate this input.

The Water Exported volume is the bulk water conveyed or sold by the water utility to neighboring water systems that exists outside of their service area.

Typically this water is metered at the custody transfer point of interconnection between the two water utilities. Usually the meter(s) are owned by the water utility that is selling or transfering the water: i.e. the exporter. If the water utility who is compiling the annual water audit sells or transfers bulk water in this manner, they are an exporter of water.

If a default value is selected, the user does not need to grade the item; a grading value of 3 is automatically applied.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 34
Item Name Description
Water Imported:

Error Adjustment
(WIEA)

WATER LOSSES
Water Supplied
Error
Adjustments
= apparent losses + real losses
= water supplied - authorized consumption
Water Losses are the difference between Water Supplied and Authorized Consumption. Water losses can be considered as a total volume for the whole system, or for partial systems such as transmission systems, pressure zones or district metered areas (DMA), if one of these configurations are the basis of the water audit.

General: For the Water Supplied inputs, there are three typical sources of error that may warrant an Error Adjustment on the Worksheet.

Derivation Guidance:

The final step is to add meter error % and data transfer error %:

Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 35
#REF!
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Figure 2 shows the
configuration of the customer
water meter located inside the
customer building, where Lp is
the distance from the curb stop
to the water meter.

Figure 3 shows the
configuration of an unmetered
customer building , where Lp is
the distance from the curb stop
to the first point of customer
water consumption, or, more
simply, the building line.

American Water Works Association.

8. Service Connection Diagrams courtesy of Ronnie McKenzie, WRP Pty Ltd.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

1. Kunkel, G., G. Trachtman, A. Wyatt, and W. Jernigan. Water Loss Control Committee Report: Key Performance Indicators for Non-Revenue Water—AWWA’s 2020 Position . 2020.

Journal AWWA. https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/awwa.1428

3. AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, M36 Publication. 5th Edition, (forthcoming) 2021. AWWA. Denver, CO.

4. Trachtman G., A. Wyatt, et al. 2019. Assessment of Performance Indicator for Non-Revenue Water Target Setting and Progress Tracking . AWWA. Denver, CO.

5. Trachtman G., A. Wyatt, et al. 2019. WRF 4695: Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Plan . Water Research Foundation. Denver, CO.

6. Lambert, A. 2020. Low ILIs and Small Systems. Llandudno, UK. https://leakssuitelibrary.com

7. Good Practices on Leakage Management, Main Report . EU Reference Document. European Commission, Luxembourg. 2015.

American Water Works Association.

FWAS v6.0
www.awwa.org
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 37 VERSION HISTORY:

Version: Release
Date:

4.2. A French language version was also made available for v4.2.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 38 AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 39

Review NRW components, performance indicators and
graphical outputs to evaluate the results of the audit.

Enter notes to explain how values were calculated,
document data sources, and related information about data management practices.

Interactive Data
Grading
714-374-1641
Huntington Beach
USA
Acre-feet
Oct 15 2025
California (CA)
Dec 31 2024
Jan 01 2024
Calendar
2024
Enter the required data on this worksheet to calculate the water balance and data grading.

Acknowledge-
ments
By popular demand! A blank sheet.

The world is your canvas.

The values entered in the Worksheet automatically
populate the Water Balance.

Use this sheet to interpret the results of the audit validity score and performance indicators.

Use this sheet to understand the terms used in the audit process.

Diagrams depicting possible customer service connection line configurations.

0.25%
Retail
Potable Water
custom 75.000
volume 25.000
default
CA3010053
Rachel Davis
Use acronym buttons in IDG header to navigate among inputs. Acronym Key above.

White = needs answers, orange = complete, clear = not required. Example below. 193,510
[email protected]
choose entry option:

Worksheet
American Water Works Association Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved.

FWAS v6.0
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Start Page 1
Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER SUPPLIED choose entry option:

VOS Volume from Own Sources: n g 7 20,791.900 Acre-ft/Yr n g 8 volume acre-ft/yr over-registration VOSEA WI Water Imported: n g 6 3,021.700 Acre-ft/Yr n g percent acre-ft/yr select….. WIEA WE Water Exported: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr n g n/a percent acre-ft/yr select….. WEEA 23,813.582 Acre-ft/Yr
.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
BMAC Billed Metered: n g 8 22,880.160 Acre-ft/Yr
BUAC Billed Unmetered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr
UMAC Unbilled Metered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr choose entry option:

UUAC Unbilled Unmetered: n g 3 57.200 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr24061 Default option selected for Unbilled Unmetered, with automatic data grading of 3 22,937.360 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES 876.222 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 choose entry option:

SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 57.200 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 6 57.344 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% percent acre-ft/yr under-registration UC Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 57.200 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3 171.745 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses
704.477 Acre-ft/Yr
876.222 Acre-ft/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
933.422 Acre-ft/Yr

SYSTEM DATA
Lm Length of mains: n g 10 558.5 miles (including fire hydrant lead lengths) Nc Number of service connections: n g 8 54,526 (active and inactive) Service connection density: 98 conn./mile main
Yes
Lp Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10 ft (average distance between property line and meter) AOP Average Operating Pressure: n g 8 70.3 psi

COST DATA
CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge: n g 10 $2.56
VPC Variable Production Cost: n g 8 $825.67 $/acre-ft $/yr (optional input) WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER:
go to
dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:

Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components: OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) Unit Total Losses: gal/conn/day 2: Billed Metered (BMAC) Unit Apparent Losses: 3.1 gal/conn/day 3: Unauthorized Consumption (UC) Unit Real LossesA: 19.4 gal/conn/day Unit Real LossesB: gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard) Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Worksheet
City of Huntington Beach

0.018
Jan 01 2024 - Dec 31 2024
Water Supplied Error Adjustments
Calendar2024
Real Losses:

WATER LOSSES:

Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier IV (71-90). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. *** $/100 cubic feet (ccf)
$25,908,520
Total Annual Operating Cost
go to start page
NON-REVENUE WATER:

If entering an
Error Adjustment,
select under- or over-
registration

3.000
WATER SUPPLIED:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:

Apparent Losses:

Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
Click 'n' to add notes
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

To access definitions, click the input name
To edit water system info:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Worksheet 2
Interactive Data Grading Responses
2024
go to notes
vos Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vos.0 Did the water utility supply any water from its own sources during the audit year? Yes vos.1 What percent of own supply volume is metered? >99% vos.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration? Annually Limiting vos.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process? Data transfer errors are checked at secondary device(s), but not to tertiary device(s) Limiting vos.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available for review? Yes vos.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? None, or Not within last 5 years Limiting vos.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available for review? vos.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
vos.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? Yes vos.9 Which best describes the frequency of finished water meter readings? Continuous vos.10
Which best describes the frequency of data review for anomalies/errors? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

Volume from Own Sources (VOS) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Interactive Data Grading 6 CMI
3SDHE
3 UC
8 BMAC
n/a UMAC
n/aBUAC
n/aWEEA
n/aWE
WIEA
7VOS
8 VOSEA
6 WI
8 AOP
10Lm
8 Nc
10 Lp
10 CRUC
8 VPC
Use acronyms for navigation
Orange = complete
FWAS v6.0 American Water Works Association. Copyright © 2020, All Rights Reserved. 3 UUAC
White = incomplete
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 3 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 4 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
vosea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vosea.1 Are tank levels monitored automatically & recorded daily? Yes vosea.2 Are daily changes of stored water volumes in distribution system tanks included in the tabulation of the daily "Volume from Own Sources" quantity? No Limiting vosea.3 Is the annual net distribution storage change included in either the VOS input or the VOSEA input? Yes
vosea.4 Are the flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results included in the VOSEA input in the water audit? Yes, results are analyzed and a 'no-adjustment' was determined FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT: 8
Volume from Own Sources Error Adjustment (VOSEA) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 5 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
wi Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions wi.0 Did the water utility import any water during the audit year? Yes wi.1 What percent of water imported is metered? >99%
wi.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration? At least semi-annually wi.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process? Data transfer errors are checked at secondary device(s) AND tertiary device(s) wi.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available? Yes wi.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? None, or Not within last 5 years wi.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available? wi.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
wi.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? Yes wi.9 Which best describes the frequency of meter readings (data collection frequency as opposed to billing frequency)? Continuous
wi.10
What is the frequency of data review & correction by Exporting or Importing Utility for data gaps and/or anomalies? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

Once per month Limiting
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
6 For questions 2-10 below: Choose the answer that applies for those meters that measure >90% of the water imported volume.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

Water Imported (WI) - Data Grading Criteriago to input
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 6 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 7 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
wiea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions wiea.1 Is an agreement in place between Exporting and Importing Utility for the purchase of water? Yes, written
wiea.2 Are meter accuracy testing or electronic calibration requirements stipulated in the water purchase agreement?
wiea.3 Are flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results used to inform the error adjustment input in the water audit? Yes, results are analyzed and a 'no-adjustment' was determined wiea.4 Who has access to the import meter readings including current and archived data? Exporting and Importing Utility FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:

Water Imported Error Adjustment (WIEA) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 8 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
we Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions we.0 Did the water utility export any water during the audit year? No we.1 What percent of water exported is metered?
we.2 What is the frequency of electronic calibration?
we.3 What level of data transfer errors are checked as part of the electronic calibration process?
we.4 Is the most recent electronic calibration documentation available? we.5 What is the frequency of in-situ flow accuracy testing? we.6 Is the most recent in-situ flow accuracy testing documentation available? we.7 What are the total volume-weighted average results of in-situ flow accuracy testing (during or closest to audit year)?
we.8 Have testing and calibration procedures been closely scrutinized for compliance with procedures described in the AWWA M36 and/or M33 Manual(s)? we.9 Which best describes the frequency of meter readings (data collection frequency as opposed to billing frequency)?
we.10
What is the frequency of data review & correction by Exporting or Importing Utility for data gaps and/or anomalies? These can include numbers that are outside of typical patterns, and zero or 'null' values that may reflect a gap in data recording.

FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
For questions 2-10 below: Choose the answer that applies for those meters that measure >90% of the water exported volume.

In-situ flow accuracy testing = a test process that confirms the flow measuring accuracy of the primary device (the flowmeter), in its installed location, using an independent reference volume.

Electronic calibration = a process that checks for error in the metering secondary device(s) and/or the tertiary device(s).

Secondary device can include conversion to mA, meter transmitter or similar instrumentation.

Tertiary device can include SCADA, historian or other computerized archival system.

Water Exported (WE) - Data Grading Criteriago to input
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 9 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
weea Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions weea.1 Is an agreement in place between Exporting and Importing Utility? weea.2 Are meter accuracy testing or electronic calibration requirements stipulated in the water purchase agreement?
weea.3 Are flow accuracy test and/or electronic calibration results used to inform the error adjustment input in the water audit?
weea.4 Who has access to the import meter readings including current and archived data? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
Water Exported Error Adjustment (WEEA) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 10 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
bmac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions bmac.0 Were any customers metered in the audit year? Yes bmac.1 For billed metered accounts, what % of bills are estimated in a typical billing cycle? 5% or less bmac.2
How often does the utility read its customer meters?
For systems with multiple read frequencies, select the reading frequency that describes the majority of your customers.

More frequently than monthly
bmac.3 Is the BMAC volume pro-rated to represent consumption occuring exactly during the audit period? No Limiting
bmac.4 How frequently does internal review by utility staff of the BMAC volumes occur? Every billing cycle bmac.5 What level of detail is examined in the internal review of BMAC volumes? Totals grouped by use type or customer class and specific accounts flagged for anomalous consumption bmac.6 When was the most recent billing data review by someone who is independent of the utility billing process? Within last 3 years
bmac.7 What level of detail was examined in the review by someone who is independent of the utility billing process? Full billing database query and analysis of raw data to verify the summary consumption volumes FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
8 Billed Metered Authorized Consumption (BMAC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 11 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
buac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions buac.0 Was there any billed consumption on unmetered accounts in the audit year? No buac.1 What portion of billed accounts are unmetered (% by number of accounts)? buac.2 Methodology to quantify consumption for unmetered accounts? buac.3 How frequently is unmetered customer consumption estimated? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
Billed Unmetered Authorized Consumption (BUAC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 12 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
umac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions umac.0 Did the water utility have any unbilled-metered consumption in the audit year? No umac.1 Does the water utility policy articulate which accounts are exempt from billing? umac.2 How many unbilled metered accounts exist?
umac.3
How often is each unbilled customer meter read?
For systems with multiple read frequencies, select the reading frequency that describes the majority of your customers.
umac.4 How often are unbilled metered volumes reviewed for error? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
n/a
Unbilled Metered Authorized Consumption (UMAC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 13 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
uuac Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions uuac.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered uuac.1 How well-understood is the extent of unbilled unmetered use? uuac.2 Which best describes the records that are kept for events of unbilled unmetered use?
uuac.3 How is the majority of unbilled unmetered use estimated? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption (UUAC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 14 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
sdhe Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions sdhe.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered sdhe.1 Which best describes how the input was derived?
sdhe.2 Which best describes validation performed in the billing software for multipliers (conversions between unit of meter reading and unit of billing)? sdhe.3 Which best describes the policy for new service accounts to ensure there is no lapse between start of customer water usage and start of measurement/billing? sdhe.4 Which best describes auditing that takes place on the billing process? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet Systematic Data Handling Error (SDHE) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 15 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
cmi Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions cmi.0 Was there any metered customer usage during the audit period? Yes cmi.1 Do you test meters reactively (when triggered by customer complaint or billing/consumption flag)? Reactive testing conducted
cmi.2
For small size customer meters, which best describes the frequency of proactive testing (effort beyond when triggered by customer complaint or billing/consumption flags)?
Recurring, within two years of the audit period
cmi.3 Which best describes what meters are included in the proactive small size customer meter testing activities? Testing targeted to subsets of meters ie oldest meters cmi.4 For mid and large size customer meters, which best describes the frequency of the proactive testing program? Recurring, within 5 years prior to audit period, but less frequently than annually cmi.5 Which best describes what meters are included in the proactive mid- and large customer meter testing activities? Testing targeted to subsets of meters (ie most revenue generating or customer types) cmi.6 Which best describes how the input was derived? Meter accuracy test results or manufacturer specs are referenced but not analyzed and used directly in calculation Limiting cmi.7 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
cmi.8 To what extent does meter replacement occur and for which meters? Replacement upon complete failure or special circumstance (as needed) cmi.9 Which best describes the reliability of meter installation records? Records are kept for meter installations, and they include data on installation date, type, size, and manufacturer FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
6 Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 16 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
uc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions uc.0 On the Worksheet, the status of the default option is: Default is used because Custom Value is selected but no value has been entered uc.1 Which best describes how the input was derived?
uc.2 Which best describes the extent of unauthorized consumption tracking and oversight?
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
3 This Data Grading Criteria is hidden when the 'default' input is used on the Worksheet Unauthorized Consumption (UC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 17 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Lm Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Lm.1 How was the input derived? Derived directly from Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) Lm.2 Are hydrant laterals included in the input derivation? Yes Lm.3 Which best describes how the Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) is kept up to date? Additions or subtractions are updated in the mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc), at least annually Lm.4 Which best describes how the Mains inventory (GIS, ledger, etc) is field validated to confirm field conditions match the inventory? Field validation is accomplished (i.e. in daily operations or specific validation projects) FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 Length of Mains (Lm) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 18 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Nc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Nc.1 How was the input derived? Extracted from Services inventory (GIS, billing system, etc) Nc.2 What is the count of services based on? Non-premise based, i.e. meter count, customer count Limiting Nc.3 Are inactive (but still pressurized) service lines included in the input? These may be metered or unmetered. Yes
Nc.4 Which best describes how the inventory of service connections (GIS, billing system, etc) is kept up to date? Additions or subtractions are updated in the service line inventory (GIS, billing system, etc), at least annually Nc.5 Which best describes how the inventory of service connections (GIS, billing system, etc) is field validated to confirm field conditions match the inventory? Field validation is accomplished for the entire system (i.e. in daily operations or specific validation projects) FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
8 Number of Service Connections (Nc) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 19 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
Lp Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions Lp.0 Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Yes Lp.1 How was the input derived?
Lp.2 Which best describes how the Customer Service Line and Meter Locations mapping is kept up to date?
Lp.3 Which best describes how the Customer Service Line mapping is validated to what is in the field?
Lp.4 Which best describes the policy to define where the utility's ownership of the service line ends, and the customer's ownership of the service line begins? FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 Average Length of (Private) Customer Service Line (Lp) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 20 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
aop Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions aop.1 Which best describes checks on the boundary integrity for the system's pressure zone(s)? Normally-closed boundary valves between zones have been confirmed within the past 3 years to be fully closed aop.2 Which best describes how one-time pressure readings (i.e. from hydrants) are collected? Collected only if there are low pressure complaints, or new development requests Limiting aop.3 Which best describes where continuous pressure data (via temporary data loggers or permanent telemetry) is collected? At zone boundary conditions, plus some locations inside the zone(s) but not representing the full pressure profile aop.4 Which best describes how continuous pressure data is collected? Year-round data collection via permanent monitoring aop.5 How was the input derived? Calculated from field data as a weighted average, compliant with methods described in the M36 Manual FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
8 Average Operating Pressure (AOP) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 21 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
cruc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions cruc.0 Was any metered consumption billed on a volumetric basis in the audit period? Yes cruc.1 Which best describes the use and reliability of the current rate structure? Customer bill calculations have been checked to confirm the rate structure is correctly implemented cruc.2 Choose the option that best describes how the input was derived A volume-weighted average of all rates was calculated cruc.3 Is there any additional volumetric revenue the utility receives that depends on water meter readings, such as sewer? No
cruc.4 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT:
10 Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 22 of 42 Interactive Data Grading Responses
go to notes
vpc Criteria Question Select Best-Fit Answers to All Visible Questions vpc.1 Choose the option that best describes how the input was derived Multiple sources of water exist, and a volume-weighted average was calculated for all sources vpc.2
Choose the option that best describes which short-run marginal costs have been included in the input, using the definitions below for reference. Short-run marginal costs can include the following:
- chemicals + power for treatment, typically applicable if the utility is producing/treating water
- power for distribution, typically applicable if pumps exist in the distribution network - water acquisition costs, typically applicable if the utility is purchasing water or incurs any extraction costs for withdrawing from a source
Some short-run marginal costs may not be applicable. The auditor should analyze the system characteristics to determine which costs are applicable for inclusion in the VPC input derivation. See also the latest AWWA M36 Manual for further guidance.

Long-run marginal costs have not been evaluated for applicability, and are not included Limiting vpc.4 Has the input derivation been reviewed by someone with expert knowledge in the M36 methodology? Yes
FINAL DATA GRADE FOR THIS AUDIT INPUT: 8
Variable Production Cost (VPC) - Data Grading Criteriago to input AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Interactive Data Grading 23 of 42 AWWA Free Water Audit Software: Dashboard
Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Audit Year: Calendar Jan 01 2024 - Dec 31 2024 Actual KPI result Target (see Worksheet)
1 US$ = Local
Data Validity Score: Data Validity Tier: enter current conversion rate for local currency Tier II (26-50) Tier III (51-70)
Tier IV (71-90)
Tier I (≤25)
Tier V (91-100)
Total Loss Cost Rate Apparent Loss Cost Rate Real Loss Cost Rate $/conn/year $/conn/year $/conn/year
NRW Components Summary
Unit Total Losses Unit Apparent Losses Unit Real LossesA gal/conn/day gal/conn/day gal/conn/day
Average Operating Pressure
psi
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) Unit Real LossesB
dimensionless gal/mile/day
See UARL definition for additional guidance on the ILI
Real Losses Unauthorized Consumption Acre-ft/Yr gal/conn/day Systematic Data Handling Errors Unbilled Unmetered Auth Cons Customer Metering Inaccuracies Unbilled Metered Authorized Cons Apparent Losses
Real Losses
Unbilled Authorized Cons
Non-Revenue Water
2024
Tier IV (71-90)72
Data Validity
gauge %iles per validated industry ranges2

0.737
Loss Control Planning for Tier DetailsSee
Key Performance Indicators
result is below
10th %ile

10.67 go to referencesgo to worksheet go to grading

14.18 14.3

3.51 2.8
(UARL) Unavoidable Annual Real Losses
result is below
10th %ile
882.0 14.4
VPC
1,1260.8
result is below
10th %ile

11.5 70.3
CRUC
Basis of Valuation
Blended

57.2 933.4
$191,519
$581,666
$47,229
$820,413
171.7
704.5 VPC
Volume Value
Acre-ft/Yr $/Yr
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000Volume (Acre-ft/Yr)
Total Volume of NRW = 933 Acre-
ft/Yr
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
Total Cost of NRW =
$820,413/Yr
10th %ile
25th %ile
Median
75th %ile
90th %ile
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
American Water Works Association.

FWAS v6.0
2 3
4 2
3 4Median
90th %ile90th %ile90th %ile
Median Median
Median
Median Median
Median Median
25th
%ile
25th
%ile
25th
%ile
25th
%ile 25th
%ile
25th
%ile
25th
%ile
25th
%ile
75th %ile75th %ile75th %ile
75th %ile 75th %ile 75th %ile
75th %ile75th %ile
10th %ile10th %ile10th %ile
90th %ile10th %ile 90th %ile10th %ile
90th %ile90th %ile90th %ile 10th %ile10th %ile10th %ile Guidance Information for Key Performance
Table 1 Source: AWWA Water Loss Control Committee Report (2020)1, with naming conventions updated 2020 AWWA Water Audit Method – Water Audit Outputs and Key Performance Indicators: Uses and Limitations Type Indicator Description
Suitable Purposes
Uses and Limitations Principal
Users Assessment Bench-
Marking
Target-
Setting
Planning Tracking
Attribute Apparent Loss Volume Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss level Utility, Regulators Apparent Loss Cost Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess cost loss level Utility, Regulators Real Loss Volume Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss level Utility, Regulators Real Loss Cost Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss cost level Utility, Regulators Unavoidable Annual
Real Loss (UARL)
Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Reveal theoretical technical low level of leakage
Utility, Regulators
Volume Unit Apparent Losses
(vol/conn/day)
Strong and understandable indicator for
multiple users.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Used for performance
tracking and target-setting
Utility, Regulators
Unit Real LossesA
(vol/conn/day)
Strong and understandable indicator for
multiple users.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Used for performance
tracking and target-setting
Utility, Regulators,
Policy Makers
Unit Real LossesB
(vol/pipeline length/
day)
Strong and understandable indicator for use
by utilities with low connection density.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Data collection and
assessment of systems with
“low” connection density
Utility, Regulators,
Policy Makers
Unit Total Losses
(vol/conn/day)
New KPI
Strong and understandable indicator,
suitable for high-level performance
measurement.
✓ ✓ High level indicator for
trending analysis. Not
appropriate for target-setting
or benchmarking
Utilities,
Customers
Infrastructure Leakage
Index (ILI)
Robust, specialized ratio KPI; can be
influenced by pressure and connection
density.
✓ ✓ ✓ Benchmarking after pressure
management is implemented
Utilities
Value Apparent Loss Cost
Rate (value/conn/year)
New KPI
Indicators with sufficient technical rigor.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Dashboard 24
Table 1 Source: AWWA Water Loss Control Committee Report (2020)1, with naming conventions updated 2020 AWWA Water Audit Method – Water Audit Outputs and Key Performance Indicators: Uses and Limitations Type Indicator Description
Suitable Purposes
Uses and Limitations Principal
Users Assessment Bench-
Marking
Target-
Setting
Planning Tracking
Attribute Apparent Loss Volume Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss level Utility, Regulators Apparent Loss Cost Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess cost loss level Utility, Regulators Real Loss Volume Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss level Utility, Regulators Real Loss Cost Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Assess loss cost level Utility, Regulators Unavoidable Annual
Real Loss (UARL)
Calculated by Free Water Audit Software ✓ ✓ Reveal theoretical technical low level of leakage
Utility, Regulators
Volume Unit Apparent Losses
(vol/conn/day)
Strong and understandable indicator for
multiple users.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Used for performance
tracking and target-setting
Utility, Regulators
Unit Real LossesA
(vol/conn/day)
Strong and understandable indicator for
multiple users.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Used for performance
tracking and target-setting
Utility, Regulators,
Policy Makers
Unit Real LossesB
(vol/pipeline length/
day)
Strong and understandable indicator for use
by utilities with low connection density.
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Data collection and
assessment of systems with
“low” connection density
Utility, Regulators,
Policy Makers
Unit Total Losses
(vol/conn/day)
New KPI
Strong and understandable indicator,
suitable for high-level performance
measurement.
✓ ✓ High level indicator for
trending analysis. Not
appropriate for target-setting
or benchmarking
Utilities,
Customers
Infrastructure Leakage
Index (ILI)
Robust, specialized ratio KPI; can be
influenced by pressure and connection
density.
✓ ✓ ✓ Benchmarking after pressure
management is implemented
Utilities
Value Apparent Loss Cost
Rate (value/conn/year)
New KPI
Indicators with sufficient technical rigor.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Dashboard 25
Water Audit Report for: City of Huntington Beach Calendar Audit Year: 2024 Jan 01 2024 - Dec 31 2024
General Notes:

User Notes
Volume from
Own Sources
(VOS)
Water Imported
(WI)
Water Imported
Error Adjustment
(WIEA)
Water Exported
(WE)
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Notes 26
Audit Item Notes on Input Derivation Notes on Data Validity Grading go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
Water Exported
Error Adjustment
(WEIA)
Billed Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(BMAC)
Billed Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(BUAC)
Unbilled Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(UMAC)
Unbilled
Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(UUAC)
Systematic Data
Handling Errors
(SDHE)
Customer
Metering
Inaccuracies
(CMI)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Notes 27
Audit Item Notes on Input Derivation Notes on Data Validity Grading go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
go to
worksheet
go to
grading
Customer Retail
Unit Charge
(CRUC)
Variable
Production Cost
(VPC)
Unauthorized
Consumption
(UC)
Length of Mains
(Lm)
Number of
Service
Connections
(Nc)
Average Length of
(private)
Customer
Service Line
(Lp)
Average
Operating
Pressure
(AOP)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Notes 28
Hello, I am a blank sheet, at your service.

3.2%
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0
Water Balance Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year: 2024 Jan 01 2024 - Dec 31 2024
Data Validity Tier: Tier IV (71-90)
Water Exported
(WE)
(corrected for known
errors)
Revenue Water
(Exported)

0.000 0.000
Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC)
(water exported is removed) Revenue Water
22,880.160
22,880.160 Billed Unmetered Consumption (BUAC) 22,880.160

0.000
22,937.360 Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC)

0.000
20,791.882 57.200 Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC)

57.200
Water Supplied Systematic Data Handling Errors (SDHE) 933.422 23,813.582 Apparent Losses 57.200
23,813.582 171.745 Customer Metering Inaccuracies (CMI)

57.344
Unauthorized Consumption (UC)
Water Losses 57.200
876.222 Leakage on Transmission and/or Distribution
Mains
Real Losses Not broken down
3,021.700 704.477 Leakage and Overflows at Utility's Storage Tanks
Not broken down
Leakage on Service Connections
Not broken down
Water Imported (WI)
(corrected for known
errors)
AWWA Free Water Audit Software
Non-Revenue Water
(NRW)
Billed Authorized Consumption
Unbilled Authorized Consumption
(corrected for known
errors)
City of Huntington Beach
Billed Water Exported
Volume from Own
Sources (VOS)
System Input
Volume
Authorized
Consumption
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Water Balance 30 Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year: 2024
Data Validity Tier:

Functional Focus
Area
Audit Data Collection
Short-term loss control
Long-term loss control
Target-setting
Benchmarking
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Determining Water Loss Standing
For validity scores of 50 or below, the shaded blocks should not be focus areas until better data validity is achieved.

FWAS v6.0
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Loss Control Planning 31 Item Name
Apparent
Losses

AUTHORIZED

CONSUMPTION
Average Length
of (private)
Customer Service
Line
(Lp)
Average
Operating
Pressure
(AOP)
Billed Authorized
Consumption
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Typical retail customers' consumption is tabulated usually from established customer accounts as billed metered consumption, or - for unmetered customers - billed unmetered consumption. These types of consumption, along with billed water exported, provide revenue potential for the water utility. Typically a lag will exist between timing for reading of supply meters and reading of customer meters. A lag-time correction should typically be calculated to account for this. Be certain to tabulate the water exported volume as a separate component and do not "double-count" it by including in the billed metered consumption component as well as the water exported component.

Unbilled authorized consumption occurs typically in non-account uses, including water for fire fighting and training, flushing of water mains and sewers, street cleaning, watering of municipal gardens, public fountains, or similar public-minded uses. Occasionally these uses may be metered and billed (or charged a flat fee), but usually they are unmetered and unbilled. In the latter case, the water auditor may use a default value to estimate this quantity, or implement procedures for the reliable quantification of these uses. This starts with documenting usage events as they occur and estimating the amount of water used in each event. (See Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption) This is the average length of underground customer service line, Lp, that is owned and maintained by the customer; from the point of ownership transfer to the customer water meter, or building line (if unmetered). The quantity is one of the data inputs for the calculation of Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL), which serves as the denominator of the performance indicator: Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI). The value of Lp is multiplied by the number of customer service connections to obtain a total length of customer owned piping in the system. The purpose of this parameter is to account for the unmetered service line infrastructure that is the responsibility of the customer for arranging repairs of leaks that occur on their lines. In many cases leak repairs arranged by customers take longer to be executed than leak repairs arranged by the water utility on utility-maintained piping. Leaks run longer - and lose more water - on customer-owned service piping, than utility owned piping.

NOTE: Over-estimation of Apparent Losses results in under-estimation of Real Losses. Under-estimation of Apparent Losses results in over-estimation of Real Losses.

A
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

Find
Find
Find
Find
View
Service
Connection
Diagram
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 32
Item Name Description
A
Billed Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(BMAC)
Billed Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(BUAC)
Customer
Metering
Inaccuracies
(CMI)
Customer Retail
Unit Charge
(CRUC)
Infrastructure
Leakage Index
(ILI)
Apparent water losses caused by the collective under-registration of customer water meters. Many customer water meters gradually wear as large cumulative volumes of water are passed through them over time. This causes the meters to under-register the flow of water. This occurrence is common with smaller residential meters of sizes 5/8-inch and 3/4 inch after they have registered very large cumulative volumes of water, which generally occurs only after periods of years. For meters sized 1-inch and larger - typical of multi-unit residential, commercial, institutional and industrial accounts - meter under-registration can occur from wear or from the improper application of the meter; i.e. installing the wrong type of meter or the wrong size of meter, for the flow pattern (profile) of the consumer. For instance, many larger meters have reduced accuracy at low flows. If an oversized meter is installed, most of the time the routine flow will occur in the low flow range of the meter, and a significant portion of it may not be registered. It is important to properly select and install all meters, but particularly large customer meters, size 1-inch and larger.

Note: the Free Water Audit Software allows the user to select the units that are charged to customers (either $/1,000 gallons, $/hundred cubic feet, or $/1,000 litres) and automatically converts these units for purpose of calculating Apparent Loss valuations. The monetary units are United States dollars, $.

The ratio of the Current Annual Real Losses (Real Losses) to the Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). This performance indicator is dimensionless.

NOTES ON THE UARL AND ILI:

All billed consumption which is calculated based on estimates or norms from water usage sites that have been determined by utility policy to be left unmetered.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 33
Item Name Description
A
Length of Mains
(Lm)

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 34
Item Name Description
A
Unauthorized
Consumption
(UC)
Unbilled
Authorized
Consumption
Unbilled Metered
Authorized
Consumption
(UMAC)
Unbilled
Unmetered
Authorized
Consumption
(UUAC)
Unavoidable
Annual Real
Losses (UARL)
The UARL is a theoretical reference value representing the technical low limit of leakage for well managed systems in good condition, with aggressive active leakage control. It is a key variable in the calculation of the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI).

UARL (gallons) = (5.41Lm + 0.15Nc + 7.5Lc) x P x 365 d/year, or
UARL (litres) = (18.0Lm + 0.8Nc + 25.0Lc) x P x 365 d/year where:

Note that a value of zero is not permitted, since all water utilities likely have some volume of water in this component occurring in their system.

All consumption that is unbilled, but still authorized by the utility. This includes Unbilled Metered Authorized Consumption (UMAC) + Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption (UUAC). See "Authorized Consumption" for more information.

Includes water illegally withdrawn from fire hydrants, illegal connections, bypasses to customer consumption meters, or tampering with metering or meter reading equipment; as well as any other ways to receive water while thwarting the water utility's ability to collect revenue for the water. Unauthorized consumption results in uncaptured revenue and creates an error that understates customer consumption. In most water utilities this volume is low and, if the water auditor has not yet gathered detailed data for these loss occurrences, it is recommended to use the default value of 0.25% of the Billed Authorized Consumption volume. However, if the auditor has investigated unauthorized occurrences, and has well validated data that indicates the volume from unauthorized consumption is substantially higher or lower than that generated by the default value, then the auditor should enter a quantity that was derived from the utility investigations. Note that a value of zero will not be accepted since all water utilities tend to have some volume of unauthorized consumption occurring in their system.Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 35
Item Name Description
A
Convert From…
Million Gallons (US) = 306.888329 Acre-feet
Variable
Production Cost
(VPC)
(applied to Real
Losses)
Volume from Own
Sources
(VOS)
Volume from own
sources: error
adjustment
Water Exported
(WE)
Water Exported:

Error Adjustment
(WEEA)
100
An estimate or measure of the volume by which the Water Exported volume is incorrect. This adjustment is a weighted average that represents the collective error for all of the metered and archived exported flow for all days of the audit year. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Error in the metered, archived data can also occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some degree of error in their metered data, particularly if meters are aged and infrequently tested. Occasional errors also occur in the archived data. Enter a positive percentage or volume, then select 'under-registration' or 'over-registration' from the drop-down immediately adjacent. If regular meter accuracy testing is conducted on the meter(s) - which is usually conducted by the water utility selling the water - then the results of this testing can be used to help quantify the meter error adjustment. Corrections to data gaps or other errors found in the archived data should also be included as a portion of this meter error adjustment. See Water Supplied Error Adjustments definition for guidance on how to calculate this input.

An estimate or measure of the degree of inaccuracy that exists in the master (production) meters measuring the annual Volume from own Sources, and any error in the data trail that exists to collect, store and report the summary production data. This adjustment is a weighted average number that represents the collective error for all master meters for all days of the audit year and any errors identified in the data trail. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter or meters may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Data error can occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some degree of inaccuracy in master meters and data errors in archival systems are common. Enter a positive percentage or volume, then select 'under-registration' or 'over-registration' from the drop-down immediately adjacent. See Water Supplied Error Adjustments definition for guidance on how to calculate this input.

The Water Exported volume is the bulk water conveyed or sold by the water utility to neighboring water systems that exists outside of their service area.

Typically this water is metered at the custody transfer point of interconnection between the two water utilities. Usually the meter(s) are owned by the water utility that is selling or transfering the water: i.e. the exporter. If the water utility who is compiling the annual water audit sells or transfers bulk water in this manner, they are an exporter of water.

Enter Units:

Units and
Conversions
(conversion factor = 3.0689)
Converts to…..

If a default value is selected, the user does not need to grade the item; a grading value of 3 is automatically applied.

Find
Find
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 36
Item Name Description
A
Water Imported
(WI)
Water Imported:

Error Adjustment
(WIEA)
An estimate or measure of the volume by which the Water Imported volume is incorrect. This adjustment is a weighted average that represents the collective error for all of the metered and archived imported flow for all days of the audit year. Meter error can occur in different ways. A meter may be inaccurate by under-registering flow (did not capture all the flow), or by over-registering flow (overstated the actual flow). Error in the metered, archived data can also occur due to data gaps caused by temporary outages of the meter or related instrumentation. All water utilities encounter some level of meter inaccuracy, particularly if meters are aged and infrequently tested. Occasional errors also occur in the archived metered data. Enter a positive percentage or volume, then select 'under-registration' or 'over-registration' from the drop-down immediately adjacent. If regular meter accuracy testing is conducted on the meter(s) - which is usually conducted by the water utility selling the water - then the results of this testing can be used to help quantify the meter error adjustment. See Water Supplied Error Adjustments definition for guidance on how to calculate this input.

The Water Imported volume is the bulk water purchased to become part of the Water Supplied volume. Typically this is water purchased from a neighboring water utility or regional water wholesale supplier, and is metered at the custody transfer point of interconnection between the two water utilities. Usually the meter(s) are owned by the water supplier selling the water to the utility conducting the water audit. The water supplier selling the bulk water usually charges the receiving utility based upon a wholesale water rate.

General: For the Water Supplied inputs, there are three typical sources of error that may warrant an Error Adjustment on the Worksheet.

Derivation Guidance:

The final step is to add meter error % and data transfer error %:

Water Supplied
Error
Adjustments
Find
Find
Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 37
Item Name Description
A
WATER LOSSES = apparent losses + real losses
= water supplied - authorized consumption
Water Losses are the difference between Water Supplied and Authorized Consumption. Water losses can be considered as a total volume for the whole system, or for partial systems such as transmission systems, pressure zones or district metered areas (DMA), if one of these configurations are the basis of the water audit.

Find
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Definitions 38
#REF!
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Figure 2 shows the
configuration of the customer
water meter located inside the
customer building, where Lp is
the distance from the curb stop
to the water meter.

Figure 3 shows the
configuration of an unmetered
customer building , where Lp is
the distance from the curb stop
to the first point of customer
water consumption, or, more
simply, the building line.

In any water system the Lp will
vary notably in a community of
different structures, therefore
the average Lp value is used
and this should be
approximated or calculated if a
sample of service line
measurements has been
gathered.

American Water Works Association.

FWAS v6.0
Click for more
information
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Service Connection Diagram 39 DEVELOPED BY: Will Jernigan, PE Software Chair Cavanaugh David Sayers Black & Veatch
Kate Gasner Water Systems Optimization
George Kunkel, PE Kunkel Water Efficiency Consulting
Andrew Chastain-Howley, PG, MCSM Black & Veatch
REFERENCES:

A special thanks to those members of the AWWA Water Loss Control Committee and other water industry stakeholders who assisted in the review and testing of this software.

4. Trachtman G., A. Wyatt, et al. 2019. Assessment of Performance Indicator for Non-Revenue Water Target Setting and Progress Tracking . AWWA. Denver, CO.

5. Trachtman G., A. Wyatt, et al. 2019. WRF 4695: Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Plan . Water Research Foundation. Denver, CO.

6. Lambert, A. 2020. Low ILIs and Small Systems. Llandudno, UK. https://leakssuitelibrary.com

7. Good Practices on Leakage Management, Main Report . EU Reference Document. European Commission, Luxembourg. 2015.

8. Service Connection Diagrams courtesy of Ronnie McKenzie, WRP Pty Ltd.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

1. Kunkel, G., G. Trachtman, A. Wyatt, and W. Jernigan. Water Loss Control Committee Report: Key Performance Indicators for Non-Revenue Water—AWWA’s 2020 Position . 2020.

Journal AWWA. https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/awwa.1428

3. AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, M36 Publication. 5th Edition, (forthcoming) 2021. AWWA. Denver, CO.

FWAS v6.0
www.awwa.org
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 40 VERSION HISTORY:

Version: Release
Date:

Number of
Worksheets:
v1 2005/
2006 5
v2 2006 5
v3 2007 7
v4 - v4.2 2010 10
v5 2014 12
v6 2020 11
v6 brings an overhaul to the user interface for data grading, now presented as a series of questions on the Interactive Data Grading (IDG) tab for each input that, when answered (by selecting best-fit answer from a dropdown menu), automically determines the data grade for the given input. This provides transparency to the data practices selected and which specifically are limiting, removes subjectivity in data grade assignments, and provides clarity on candidate next steps for data validity improvements. IDG tab includes navigation buttons across top banner for ease of movement between inputs, and color signals for completion. The Worksheet (fka Reporting Worksheet) includes overt designation of error adjustment as "under" or "over" for the 3 Water Supplied inputs, as well as Customer Metering Inaccuracies. This makes the convention consistent, transparent, and reduces chance of user error. A Blank Sheet has been added allowing the user to, as desired, perform supplemental calculations or capture additional relevant information. The Dashboard has been overhauled to include Data Validity, NRW Components and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). KPIs are presented in gauge format, depicting the specific KPI result against the range of results from Level 1 validated data in North America (see Web Resources, Start Page). Percentage-based indicators (% of supply, % of cost) removed as these indicators were deemed unreliable and sunset by the AWWA Water Loss Control Committee, subsequent to research and reporting from its NRW Performance Indicators Task Force.

A French language version was also made available for v4.2.

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 41 If you have questions or comments regarding the software please contact us via email at: [email protected] AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Acknowledgements 42 2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APRIL 2026 / FINAL DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
APPENDIX E 2022 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE UPDATE

Basin 8-1 Alternative
2022 Update

Submitted by: Orange County Water District
City of La Habra
Irvine Ranch Water District

Submitted to: California Department of Water Resources

January 1, 2022

Table of Contents

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents i

I. Overview

II. La Habra-Brea Management Area

III. OCWD Management Area

IV. South East Management Area

V. Santa Ana Canyon Management Area

Attachment One: DWR Comments on 2017 Alternative and Responses

Overview

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Overview
BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE

OVERVIEW
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires all high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), be sustainably managed. DWR designated the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin (“Basin 8- 1” or “Basin”) as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply.

The agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to prepare and submit an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) on December 22, 2016. Within this document, this Alternative to a GSP will be referred to herein as the “Basin 8-1 Alternative” or “Alternative”. In accordance with Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), the Alternative presented an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrated that Basin 8-1 had operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative satisfied SGMA objectives and was therefore approved.

Approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR on April 1 of each year, and to resubmit the alternative by January 1 every five years. Annual reports were submitted to DWR as follows:
• Water Year 2016-17 – March 29, 2018
• Water Year 2017-18 – March 29, 2019
• Water Year 2018-19 – March 30, 2020
• Water Year 2019-20 – March 30, 2021

This document represents the first five-year update, which is due January 1, 2022.

This update has been jointly prepared by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD); and the City of La Habra Groundwater Sustainability Agency (collectively the “Submitting Agencies”); pursuant to this Alternative, the Submitting Agencies will ensure the entire Basin 8-1 continues to be sustainably managed and data reported as required by SGMA. Pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), the Basin 8-1 Alternative has been prepared by or under the direction of a professional geologist or professional engineer.

For purposes of this report, the Basin 8-1 Alternative approved by DWR on July 17, 2019, is referred to as the 2017 Alternative. The first five-year update will be referred to as the 2022 Update. The 2017 Alternative was a comprehensive document showing that Basin 8-1 had been managed sustainably for more than 10 years. For the 2022 Update, the focus is on documenting that the basin has continued to be operated sustainably during the five years since the 2017 Alternative was submitted and to present any new information. As such, background information, such as Basin Hydrogeology, and other sections with no new information are not repeated in the 2022 Update.

Overview

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Overview
As described in the 2017 Alternative, Basin 8-1 was sub-divided into four management areas:

La Habra-Brea, OCWD, South East, and Santa Ana Canyon Management Areas (Figure 1-1).

The 2022 Update contains four chapters, one for each management area.

Figure 1-1: Basin 8-1 Management Area Boundaries
In its evaluation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative, DWR provided four recommendations that they encouraged “be given due consideration and suggest incorporating any resulting changes to the Alternative in future updates.” The recommendations and responses to these recommendations are in Attachment 1 and incorporated into the 2022 Update where appropriate.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
afy acre-feet per year
AWPF Advanced Water Purification Facility
basin Orange County groundwater basin
Basin Model OCWD groundwater model
BEA Basin Equity Assessment
BPP Basin Production Percentage
CDPH California Department of Public Health
cfs cubic feet per second
DATS Deep Aquifer Treatment System
DOC dissolved organic compound
DWR Department of Water Resources
DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
EDCs Endocrine Disrupting Compounds
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY fiscal year
GAC granular activated carbon
GIS geographic information system
GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System
IAP Independent Advisory Panel
IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District
LACPW Los Angeles County Public Works
maf million acre feet
MCAS Marine Corps Air Station
MCL maximum contaminant level
MF microfiltration
MODFLOW Computer modeling program developed by USGS
mgd million gallons per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
MTBE methyl tertiary-butyl ether
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
NDMA n-Nitrosodimethylamine
NF nanofiltration
ng/L nanograms per liter
NBGPP North Basin Groundwater Protection Program
NO2 nitrite
NO3- nitrate
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NWRI National Water Research Institute
Abbreviations and Acronyms

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE: 2022 UPDATE Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
O&M operations and maintenance
OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OC Survey Orange County Survey
OCWD Orange County Water District
PCE perchloroethylene
PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PPCPs pharmaceuticals and personal care products
Producers Orange County groundwater producers
RA replenishment assessment
RO reverse osmosis
Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board SARI Santa Ana River Interceptor
SARMON Santa Ana River Monitoring Program
SARWQH Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health
SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
SBGPP South Basin Groundwater Protection Program
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SOCs synthetic organic chemicals
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TIN total inorganic nitrogen
µg/L micrograms per liter
USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UV ultraviolet light
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WACO Water Advisory Committee of Orange County
WEI Wildermuth Environmental Inc.

WF-21 Water Factory 21
WLAM Waste Load Allocation Model
WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WRMS Water Resources Management System

Basin 8-1 Alternative
La Habra-Brea Management Area

2022 UPDATE

Submitted by: City of La Habra
On behalf of: City of La Habra
City of Brea

January 1, 2022

Basin 8-1 Alternative
La Habra-Brea Management Area

2022 UPDATE

Jeffrey D. Helsley, P.E.

Stetson Engineers, Inc.
861 S. Village Oaks Drive, Suite 100
Covina, CA 91724

Prepared for the Department of Water Resources, pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3)
January 1, 2022

Table of Contents

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE iii
Section Page

SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ .............. 1-1 SECTION 2. AGENCY INFORMATION ................................ ................................ ............ 2-1

2.1 HISTORY OF AGENCIES IN LA HABRA GROUNDWATER BASIN ....................... 2-1

2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ................................ ............. 2-2

2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................ ................................ ............................... 2-2

2.4 BUDGET ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2-2 SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION ................................ ........................ 3-1

3.1 LA HABRA GROUNDWATER BASIN SERVICE AREA ................................ .......... 3-1

3.1.1 Jurisdictional Boundaries ................................ ................................ ................. 3-1

3.1.2 Existing Land Use Designations ................................ ................................ ...... 3-3

3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................ ................................ ............ 3-3

3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation ................................ ................................ .................... 3-3

3.2.2 Regional Pumping Patterns ................................ ................................ ............. 3-3

3.2.3 Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph ................................ ............... 3-5

3.2.4 Groundwater Storage Data ................................ ................................ ............ 3-10

3.2.5 Groundwater Quality Conditions ................................ ................................ .... 3-10

3.2.6 Land Subsidence ................................ ................................ ........................... 3-11

3.2.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3-12 SECTION 4. WATER BUDGET................................ ................................ ......................... 4-1

4.1 BUDGET COMPONENTS ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-1

4.2 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE ................................ .......................... 4-1

4.3 WATER YEAR TYPE ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-1

4.4 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD ................................ ................................ ... 4-1

4.5 ESTIMATED WATER BUDGET ................................ ................................ .............. 4-2 SECTION 5. WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................ ...... 5-1

5.1 OVERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5-1 Table of Contents

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE iv

5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................ ..................... 5-1

5.3 OTHER MONITORING PROGRAMS................................ ................................ ...... 5-2 SECTION 6. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................ ... 6-1

6.1 LAND USE ELEMENTS RELATED TO BASIN MANAGEMENT ............................. 6-1

6.2 GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT .......... 6-2

6.3 GROUNDWATER EXPORT PROHIBITION................................ ............................ 6-4 SECTION 7. NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION ................................ ................................ 7-5

7.1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7-5

7.2 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS ................................ ................................ ........... 7-5

7.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................ ................................ ....................... 7-5

7.4 COMMUNICATION PLAN ................................ ................................ ....................... 7-5 SECTION 8. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT APPROACH ................................ .............. 8-1 SECTION 9. MANAGING GROUNDWATER LEVELS ................................ ...................... 9-2

9.1 HISTORY OF BASIN CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS .................... 9-2

9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS ................................ ....................... 9-2

9.3 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS ................................ ................................ .................... 9-3

9.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................ .................. 9-3 SECTION 10. MANAGING BASIN STORAGE ................................ ................................ .. 10-1

10.1 HISTORY ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 10-1

10.2 MONITORING STORAGE LEVELS ................................ ................................ ...... 10-1

10.3 MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ .............. 10-1

10.3.1 Establishment of Safe Yield ................................ ................................ ........... 10-1

10.3.2 Review and Evaluation of Groundwater Levels ................................ .............. 10-1

10.3.3 Groundwater Recharge or Storage Projects ................................ .................. 10-2

10.3.4 Potential Management Programs ................................ ................................ ... 10-3

10.4 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION IN STORAGE ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 10-4

10.5 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................ ................ 10-4 SECTION 11. MANAGING BASIN WATER QUALITY ................................ ...................... 11-1 Table of Contents

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE v

11.1 HISTORY ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 11-1

11.2 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY ISSUES ................................ .......... 11-1

11.3 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY ................................ ................... 11-1

11.4 DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................ ................ 11-2

11.5 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 11-2

11.6 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THREHOLDS ................................ ................... 11-3 SECTION 12. MANAGING SEAWATER INTRUSION ................................ ....................... 12-1 SECTION 13. MANAGING LAND SUBSIDENCE ................................ ............................. 13-1 SECTION 14. MANAGING GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER 14-1
SECTION 15. PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS .................. 15-1

15.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR WATER QUALITY ............................. 15-1

15.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR GROUNDWATER ELEVATION/STORAGE ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 15-1 SECTION 16. PROCESS TO EVALUATE NEW PROJECTS ................................ ........... 16-1 SECTION 17. LIST OF REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL STUDIES ............................... 17-1

Figure

Figure 1-1. La Habra Groundwater Basin. ................................ ................................ ............... 1-2 Figure 2-1: Cities of La Habra and Brea within Basin 8-1. ................................ ....................... 2-1 Figure 3-1: Historical La Habra Groundwater Basin (DWR, 1934. DWR, 1937)....................... 3-2 Figure 3-2. La Habra Groundwater Basin. ................................ ................................ ............... 3-2 Figure 3-3: Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells................................. .............................. 3-6 Figure 3-4: Early Well Hydrograph. 1922 Through 1975. ................................ ........................ 3-7 Figure 3-5: Groundwater Level Hydrographs. ................................ ................................ ......... 3-8 Figure 3-6: Depth to Groundwater. ................................ ................................ .......................... 3-8 Figure 3-7: Recent Groundwater Level Hydrograph. ................................ ............................... 3-9 Table of Contents

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE vi
Figure 3-8: Recent Depth to Groundwater. ................................ ................................ ............ 3-10 Figure 3-9: Coyote Creek Watershed. ................................ ................................ ................... 3-13 Figure 3-10: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. ................................ ............................ 3-14 Figure 10-1: Potential Groundwater Recharge Locations. ................................ ..................... 10-3

Table
Table 3-1: Groundwater Production in La Habra Groundwater Basin. Acre-Feet per Year. ..... 3-4 Table 3-2: La Habra Groundwater Basin Wells ................................ ................................ ....... 3-5 Table 3-3: Historical Constituent Concentrations (1927-1977) ................................ .............. 3-11 Table 4-1: Estimated Water Budget ................................ ................................ ........................ 4-2

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 1-1

LA HABRA-BREA

MANAGEMENT AREA
SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to prepare and submit an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). In accordance with Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), the Alternative presented an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrated that the Basin had operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. The Alternative was submitted to DWR on December 22, 2016. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative satisfied SGMA objectives and was therefore approved.

Approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR on April 1 of each year. Annual reports for Basin 8-1 were submitted to DWR as follows:
• Water Year 2016-17, Submitted on March 29, 2018
• Water Year 2017-18, Submitted on March 29, 2019
• Water Year 2018-19, Submitted on March 30, 2020
• Water Year 2019-20, Submitted on March 30, 2021
According to Water Code §10733.8, “At least every five years after initial submission of a plan pursuant to Section 10733.4, the department shall review any available groundwater sustainability plan or alternative submitted in accordance with Section 10733.6, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with this part, including achieving the sustainability goal. The department shall issue an assessment for each basin for which a plan or alternative has been submitted in accordance with this chapter, with an emphasis on assessing progress in achieving the sustainability goal within the basin. The assessment may include recommended corrective actions to address any deficiencies identified by the department.”
The Basin 8-1 Alternative, submitted on December 22, 2016, will be referenced to as the 2017 Alternative. This document represents the first five-year update, herein referenced as the 2022 Update, which is due January 1, 2022. The 2017 Alternative was a comprehensive document showing that Basin 8-1 had been managed sustainably for more than 10 years. For the 2022 Update, the focus is on documenting that the basin has been continued to be sustainably management during the five years since the 2017 Alternative was submitted and to present any new information from the last five years. As such, the 2017 Alternative is considered a key reference document with background information that is not duplicated in the 2022 Update.

The La Habra-Brea Management Area overlies the extents of the La Habra Groundwater Basin, referenced herein. Figure 1-1 shows the extent of the La Habra Groundwater Basin and the cities (La Habra and Brea) with jurisdiction in the La Habra-Brea Management Area.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 1-2

Figure 1-1. La Habra Groundwater Basin.

Groundwater resources protection is considered a critical component for safeguarding the long- term sustainability of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. The La Habra GSA has continued to sustainably manage groundwater resources within the La Habra Groundwater Basin.

Groundwater production over the past five years has been within the safe yield of the basin.

Accordingly, no undesirable effects have been observed within the La Habra-Brea Management Area.

As the City of La Habra (or City) currently depends on local groundwater to meet approximately 40 percent of its water consumption, preserving the sustainability of the La Habra Groundwater Basin is essential for the well-being of the City. Currently (and historically), the City of La Habra manages (and has managed) the La Habra Groundwater Basin through management plans and programs for groundwater levels, basin storage, and water quality.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2-1
SECTION 2. AGENCY INFORMATION

2.1 HISTORY OF AGENCIES IN LA HABRA GROUNDWATER
BASIN
Historically, the Cities of La Habra and Brea have managed the groundwater resources in the La Habra Groundwater Basin. The history of the agencies can be found in the 2017 Alternative.

Figure 2-1: Cities of La Habra and Brea within Basin 8-1.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2-2

2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
See the 2017 Alternative for a discussion on governance and management structure.

2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY
See the 2017 Alternative for a discussion on legal authority.

2.4 BUDGET
See the 2017 Alternative for a discussion on the budget.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-1
SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION

3.1 LA HABRA GROUNDWATER BASIN SERVICE AREA
The La Habra-Brea Management Area refers to the northwestern portion of Basin 8-1, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118, overlying the La Habra Groundwater Basin. This management area is outside of the jurisdiction of OCWD. As discussed in Section 2.2, the City of La Habra adopted a resolution establishing it as a GSA, under a memorandum of agreement with the City of Brea, for management of the La Habra Groundwater Basin underlying the two cities. The City adopted a second resolution to establish the La Habra Basin as a separate basin from Basin 8-

1. OCWD adopted a resolution to support the City’s establishment of the La Habra Basin.

3.1.1 Jurisdictional Boundaries
The historical La Habra Groundwater Basin as described in DWR Bulletin 45 (1934) and Bulletin 53 (1947) is located in both Los Angeles (western basin) and Orange Counties (eastern basin) (see Figure 3-1). The majority of the historical La Habra Basin located in Los Angeles County is within Basin 4-11, the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles, as depicted in DWR Bulletin 118 (2003 update); the entirety of the La Habra Basin located in Los Angeles County is within the area subject to the terms of the Central Basin Adjudication. The majority of the historical La Habra Basin located in Orange County is within Basin 8-1, the Coastal Plain of Orange County as depicted in DWR Bulletin 118. Only a small portion of the historical La Habra Basin in Orange County is within the boundaries of the Orange County Water District.

The Cities of La Habra and Brea overlie a portion of the La Habra Groundwater Basin that is not within the area subject to the terms of the Central Basin Adjudication, nor within the boundaries of the Orange County Water District. The La Habra Groundwater Basin, referred to herein, includes all of the City of La Habra and the portion of the City of Brea within Basin 8-1 but not within the jurisdiction of Orange County Water District, overlying the historical La Habra Groundwater Basin (see Figure 3-2).

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-2

Figure 3-1: Historical La Habra Groundwater Basin (DWR, 1934. DWR, 1937).

Figure 3-2. La Habra Groundwater Basin.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-3

3.1.2 Existing Land Use Designations
The major land use within the City of La Habra is low-density residential with pockets of medium-density residential areas. Portions of La Habra consist of commercial and light industrial land uses. Likewise, land use within the City of Brea is primarily residential with sections of commercial and industrial facilities.

3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
The geologic structure of the La Habra Groundwater Basin is dominated by the La Habra Syncline, a northwest trending, U-shaped down-fold. The syncline is deepest in the Brea area and becomes increasingly shallower to the west and is bounded by the Whittier Fault within the Puente Hills to the north and the Coyote Hills to the south (Montgomery, 1977). The La Habra Syncline produces the La Habra Valley, a naturally-occurring valley, where significant amounts of groundwater have accumulated over the past 150,000 years (Malcolm Pirnie, 2011a).

3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation
Groundwater within the La Habra Groundwater Basin generally flows from the Puente Hills in a south or southwesterly direction. Subsurface flow out of the basin occurs near Coyote and La Mirada Creeks into the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles and at the gap between the East and West Coyote Hills into the Coastal Plain of Orange County (Stetson, 2014).

A groundwater level hydrograph for a well completed in the Alluvium shows water levels declining to their lowest level in the 1950s, and recovering during the 1970s. More recent data from a nearby well shows a leveling off of water levels through the 1990s. Two other wells completed in the alluvium also show relatively flat water levels from the 1970s through the 1990s (Stetson, 2014).

Wells completed in the San Pedro Formation show rising groundwater levels. The lowest groundwater levels in this aquifer were observed during the 1930s and 1940s, with water levels recovering about 60 feet through 1972. This corresponds to DWR Bulletin No. 53 (1947) stating that the La Habra Groundwater Basin was in overdraft. More recent data show an overall rising trend of 50 to 60 feet in groundwater levels from 1970 through 2007 and a slight decline during more recent years. There were no water levels available for the La Habra Formation. See Section 3.2.3 for more information.

3.2.2 Regional Pumping Patterns
The transmissivity of a groundwater basin is the rate at which groundwater flows horizontally through the aquifer. Based on Montgomery (1977), the following are the estimated transmissivities in gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) for each of the water-bearing zones of the La Habra Groundwater Basin.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-4
• Alluvium: 200 gpd/ft to 10,000 gpd/ft
• La Habra Formation: 25,000 gpd/ft
• San Pedro Formation: 60,000 gpd/ft
Historically, all three water-bearing zones of the La Habra Groundwater Basin were developed for domestic and irrigation purposes, with most wells drilled between 1916 and 1940. The City of La Habra originally drilled three production wells in the deeper aquifers. Groundwater production in these wells ceased in 1968 (Montgomery, 1977). Based on Montgomery (1979), the Alluvium and La Habra Formations are not considered to have groundwater development potential for the following reasons: the Alluvium is limited in thickness and extent, has low permeability characteristics, and is of poor water quality while the La Habra Formation’s permeable sand and gravel zones are thin and discontinuous. Groundwater production in the San Pedro Formation continues to this day. Based on Montgomery (1977), the following are expected well yields for each of the water-bearing zones of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. • Alluvium: 200 gpm
• La Habra Formation: 100 gpm to 400 gpm
• San Pedro Formation: 300 gpm to 800 gpm
The City of La Habra pumps local groundwater from the La Habra Groundwater Basin from three production wells: the Idaho Street Well, the La Bonita Well, and the Portola Well. The Idaho Street Well has a capacity of 2,000 gpm but is regulated at 1,500 gpm. Water pumped from the Idaho Street Well requires treatment before entering the distribution system. This treatment consists of chlorination, air-stripping to remove ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, and the addition of sodium hexametaphosphate to sequester iron and manganese (Malcolm Pirnie, 2011a). The capacities of the La Bonita Well and the Portola Well are 850 gpm and 1,200 gpm, respectively.

The City of Brea owns and operates one non-potable groundwater well used for irrigation at the Brea Creek Golf Course (Brea, Water Master Plan Update, November 2009). The maximum capacity of this well is 450 gpm.

Table 3-1: Groundwater Production in La Habra Groundwater Basin. Acre-Feet per Year.

Year City of La
Habra
City of Brea1 Total
2011 1,849 76 1,925
2012 1,865 86 1,951
2013 3,073 82 3,155
2014 4,094 121 4,215
2015 3,630 50 3,680
2016 3,547 86 3,633
La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-5
Year City of La
Habra
City of Brea1 Total
2017 3,200 96 3,295
2018 2,653 111 2,763
2019 2,158 88 2,245
2020 2,493 108 2,600
AVERAGE 2,856 90 2,946
1 Does not include small additional pumping within the City of Brea by a privately owned groundwater production well.

Sources: 2015 Urban Water Management Plans (Arcadis, 2016). City of La Habra. City of Brea.

Table 3-2: La Habra Groundwater Basin Wells
Well Owner Well Name Well Use Well Depth (ft) Well Capacity (gpm) City of La Habra Idaho Street Potable 970 2,000
City of La Habra La Bonita Potable 890 850
City of La Habra Portola Potable 1,010 1,200
City of Brea Irrigation
Well
Irrigation Unknown 450
Memory Garden
Memorial Park
-- Irrigation Unknown Unknown

3.2.3 Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph
Groundwater level data were compiled from DWR’s Water Data Library for eight wells with sufficient data to analyze trends within the La Habra Groundwater Basin. The DWR groundwater data were available for 1970 through 2010. Montgomery’s hydrographs from 1922 through 1975 are also included to capture earlier groundwater trends when there was more agricultural groundwater pumping for crop irrigation. Five of the ten monitoring wells had accompanying well logs to determine which aquifer was represented by the data. Figure 3-3 shows the location of these wells and the inferred direction of groundwater flow based on the groundwater level data (Stetson, 2014).

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-6

Figure 3-3: Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Wells.

The groundwater level hydrograph for a well completed in the alluvial aquifer (Figure 3-4; T3/R10-10N1) shows water levels declining to their lowest level in the 1950s, and recovering during the 1970s. More recent data from a nearby well (Figure 3-5; T3/R10-10N2) shows a leveling off of water levels through the 1990s. Two other wells completed in the alluvium (T3/R10-2N2 and -9M2) also show relatively flat water levels from the 1970s through the 1990s, (Stetson, 2014).

Wells completed in the San Pedro aquifer show rising groundwater levels. The lowest groundwater levels in this aquifer were observed during the 1930s and 1940s. This corresponds to DWR Bulletin No. 53 (1947) stating that the La Habra Groundwater Basin was in overdraft. Groundwater levels recovered about 60 feet from the 1940s through 1972 at well T3/R10-14G1. More recent data from well T3/R10-18C1 show an overall rising trend of 50 to 60 feet in groundwater levels from 1970 through 2007 and a slight decline during the last three years of data. There were no water levels available for the La Habra aquifer (Stetson, 2014).

Recent data showing the depth to groundwater are presented in Figure 3-6. Wells T3/R10-9G1 and -8B2 show a similar pattern of rising groundwater levels through 2007 as seen at well T3/R10-18C1 completed in the San Pedro aquifer. The alluvial aquifer well data present a relatively flat groundwater level from 10 to 40 feet below land surface. The depth to groundwater graph shows groundwater levels in the San Pedro Aquifer recovering to levels observed in the alluvial aquifer (Stetson, 2014).

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-7

Figure 3-4: Early Well Hydrograph. 1922 Through 1975.

Source: Montgomery, 1977.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-8

Figure 3-5: Groundwater Level Hydrographs.

Source: Stetson, 2014.

Figure 3-6: Depth to Groundwater.

Source: Stetson, 2014.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-9

The hydrograph for the monitoring well with both recent data and a long period of record is shown in the figure below. Recent groundwater level data suggest that groundwater levels are stable and the basin is in balance.

Figure 3-7: Recent Groundwater Level Hydrograph.

220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320Elevation (feet)
Groundwater Level Hydrograph - Well 3/10-9G1
Ground Surface Elevation Water Surface Elevation
La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-10

Figure 3-8: Recent Depth to Groundwater.

3.2.4 Groundwater Storage Data
According to the DWR Bulletin 45 (1934), the storage capacity of the historical La Habra Groundwater Basin is approximately 153,000 acre-feet. Approximately 57 percent of the historical La Habra Groundwater Basin is in the eastern portion of the basin which is now designated within Basin 8-1. The Cities of La Habra and Brea overlie approximately 60 percent of the eastern portion of the historical La Habra Groundwater Basin (Stetson, 2014).

Accordingly, the storage capacity of the current La Habra Groundwater Basin is approximately 55,000 acre-feet.

3.2.5 Groundwater Quality Conditions
Previous investigations of water quality within the La Habra Basin determined that the quality is extremely variable. It was shown that shallow regions within the central portion of the basin as well as areas recharged by surface water along the basin boundary are of a bicarbonate and chloride character. Sulfate concentration increased with depth in the La Habra and San Pedro water-bearing zones. The historical data also shows that total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations have remained relatively stable (Montgomery, 1977). The most recent 10-year average TDS concentrations in the La Bonita, Portola, and Idaho wells are 1,052 mg/l, 750 mg/l, and 802 mg/l, respectively.

Overall, groundwater from the San Pedro Aquifer is considered to be of fair to good quality (Montgomery, 1979). However, groundwater produced from the La Habra Groundwater Basin is not currently used directly for potable purposes due to water quality concerns that predate SGMA legislation. Water from the La Bonita and Portola Wells is chlorinated and then blended 0 10
20 30
40 50
60Depth (Feet)
Depth to Groundwater - Well 3/10-9G1
La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-11
with water purchased from the California Domestic Water Company in a 250,000-gallon forebay to reduce the concentration of minerals prior to entering the City of La Habra’s distribution system (La Habra, 2014).

Groundwater production wells in Brea are strictly used for irrigation purposes as the groundwater beneath the city has poor water quality and would require extensive treatment and blending with higher quality water to meet public health standards (Malcolm Pirnie, 2011).

Table 3-3 below shows historical water quality for select constituents. Recent State database water quality results indicate reported exceedances in raw groundwater for nitrate, perchlorate, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and radioactivity, with the most recent violation occurring in 2014 (Safe Drinking Water Information System).

Table 3-3: Historical Constituent Concentrations (1927-1977) Constituent Minimum Maximum Average
Specific Conductance 255 2,235 1,324
Total Dissolved Solids 269 1,696 943
Sulfate 0 672 174
Chloride 18 460 161
Nitrate 0 185 44
Fluoride 0 1.6 0.44
Total Hardness 75 931 489
Source: Montgomery, 1977.

3.2.6 Land Subsidence
Based on Orange County Water District’s 2015 Update to its Groundwater Management Plan, there is no evidence that the observed minimal land surface changes in portions of Orange County has caused, or are likely to cause, any structural damage within the area (OCWD, 2015). As long as groundwater elevations and storage within the basin are maintained within their historical operating ranges, the potential for problematic land subsidence is reduced.

Additionally, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) does not show the La Habra Groundwater Basin as an area where there have been historical or current subsidence recorded due to either groundwater pumping, loss of peat, or oil extraction (USGS, 2021). There is also no evidence of land subsidence within the La Habra Groundwater Basin according to the Department of Water Resources’ SGMA Data Viewer. Vertical displacement estimates are La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-12
derived from Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data and show only a minimal positive vertical displacement within the area (DWR, 2021a). Accordingly, there are no known land subsidence undesirable results caused by depletion of groundwater resources.

3.2.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
The La Habra Groundwater Basin lies entirely within the Coyote Creek Watershed (see Figure 3-7). The Coyote Creek Watershed drains approximately 165 square miles of densely populated areas of residential, commercial, and industrial areas as well as areas of open space (Atkins, 2012). Coyote Creek is a tributary to the San Gabriel River. Major Creeks within the watershed are: Coyote Creek, Brea Creek, Fullerton Creek, Carbon Creek, Moody Creek, and Los Alamitos Channel, some of which are concrete lined.

Coyote Creek, Brea Creek, and La Mirada Creek (a non-major creek) all flow into and drain out of the La Habra Valley. The total drainage area of these three creeks within the valley is approximately 12,950 acres (Stetson, 2013). Coyote Creek and La Mirada Creek are surface waters flowing through the boundaries of the City of La Habra. Montgomery (1977) determined that about 30% of the runoff available in an average rainfall year percolates to the aquifers underlying the La Habra Valley.

The San Pedro Formation is naturally recharged directly through aquifer outcrops (exposed formation sediments) in the Los Coyote Hills (south of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway) and in the Puente Hills (along the foothills north of Whittier Boulevard) [Montgomery, 1977]. The San Pedro Formation could also be indirectly recharged through the uplifted and exposed San Pedro beds that lie just below a thin layer of alluvium along the Coyote Creek valley (Montgomery, 1977). Within the La Habra Valley, an estimated 15% of precipitation contributes to aquifer recharge as direct percolation of precipitation. The 40-year average rainfall (14 inches) results in a water supply from precipitation within the 10,160-acre drainage area of approximately 1,780 AFY (Stetson, 2013).

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-13

Figure 3-9: Coyote Creek Watershed.

A review of available references was conducted to identify any potential presence of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) in the La Habra-Brea Management Area and to review potential impacts groundwater extraction may have on the ecosystems. DWR’s Natural Communities (NC) dataset includes two habitat classes which are associated with groundwater:
wetland features and vegetation types. Small areas of GDEs such as Palustrine, scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded wetlands, have been found on the western portion of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Groundwater dependent vegetation, such as Coast Live Oak, Willow, and Riparian Mixed Hardwood have been found in small areas within the central and eastern portions of the La Habra Groundwater Basin (DWR, 2021b). As shown in Figure 3-10 below, groundwater extraction does not occur near groundwater dependent vegetation or wetlands.

Likewise, potential groundwater recharge locations are not located near groundwater dependent vegetation; therefore, any future recharge project would not alter the current natural ecosystem.

La Habra’s groundwater production wells extract groundwater from the San Pedro formation, the deepest aquifer unit that forms the La Habra Groundwater basin, which is significantly deeper than the than the perched alluvial (Yerkes, 1972). The areas of vegetation identified as groundwater dependent ecosystems are along the base of the surrounding hills at the limits of the basin and are also supported by surface water runoff and rainfall. Cross sections in the region indicate shallow groundwater in those areas.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 3-14

Figure 3-10: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 4-1
SECTION 4. WATER BUDGET

4.1 BUDGET COMPONENTS
The components of the water budget generally include recharge from precipitation and runoff, recharge from subsurface inflow, subsurface outflow, and groundwater production.

Recharge components of the water budget consist of mountain front and streamflow recharge and deep percolation of precipitation. Various hydrogeologic studies show that annual natural recharge ranges from 3,300 AFY to 3,900 AFY. No measurable subsurface inflow occurs into the La Habra- Brea Management Area. Additionally, no artificial recharge occurs in the La Habra-Brea Management Area at this time.

Outflow components of the water budget consist of groundwater production and subsurface outflow. Groundwater production in La Habra-Brea Management Area has ranged from approximately 2,000 AFY to 4,200 AFY in recent years (See Table 3-1). Subsurface flow out of the groundwater basin occurs westerly near Coyote and La Mirada Creeks into the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles (Central Basin), and southerly at the gap between the East and West Coyote Hills into the main Coastal Plain of Orange County (Stetson, 2014). Subsurface outflow ranges from 2,200 to 5,500 AFY (OCWD 2015).

4.2 CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE
Based on water level measurements the water budget appears to be in balance over the past ten years. Changes in groundwater storage are monitored through the monitoring of groundwater elevations which have shown rising trends since the 1970s. Available groundwater level data indicate groundwater levels have generally increased or remained stable over the last five years. See Section 3.2.3. These conditions indicate groundwater storage changes in the La Habra Groundwater Basin are within an acceptable range and undesirable results are not present.

4.3 WATER YEAR TYPE
The estimated water budget is based on normal/average water year type. However, historical hydrographs indicate stable or rising groundwater levels, even during dry and prolonged drought years, indicating that the water year type has little impact on the water budget.

4.4 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD
Groundwater production within the La Habra-Brea Management Area is managed by the establishment of a safe yield so that the groundwater levels and storage capacity in the La Habra Groundwater Basin will be maintained.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 4-2
In 1977, Montgomery Engineers completed a groundwater study for the City of La Habra and estimated the “probable long-term groundwater basin yield” of the La Habra Groundwater Basin based on the natural recharge and natural discharge methods. Stetson conducted a re- evaluation of Montgomery’s 1977 safe yield analysis in 2013 to re-determine the estimated safe yield based on the natural recharge method. The average of these two methods (natural discharge and natural recharge) results in an approximate safe yield of 4,500 AFY.

The City of La Habra has been producing groundwater since the late 1990s and monitoring static and pumping groundwater elevations since 2008. Previous investigations into groundwater levels and the safe yield have been used to manage the La Habra Groundwater Basin for over 10 years.

4.5 ESTIMATED WATER BUDGET
The estimated water budget is shown in Table 4-1 below. There is currently insufficient data to determine precise estimates of the water budget components; accordingly, the water budget is presented as ranges.

Table 4-1: Estimated Water Budget
Budget Component Estimated Range 1
Inflows
Precipitation 1,600 - 1,800
Mountain Front Recharge 1,700 - 2,100
Incidental/Other Recharge Unknown
Outflows
Subsurface Outflow 2,200 – 5,500
Groundwater Extraction 2,000 – 4,000
BALANCE1 0
1 This water budget is based on previous historically estimated inflows and outflows in the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Available water level data show rising or stable groundwater levels indicating the Basin is in balance. Therefore, the historical estimates may not account for all of the recharge occurring in the Basin.

Sources: Montgomery, 1977. OCWD, 2015. Stetson, 2013.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 5-1
SECTION 5. WATER RESOURCE MONITORING

PROGRAMS

5.1 OVERVIEW
The La Habra Groundwater Basin is currently monitored for groundwater elevations and for groundwater quality through productions wells and monitoring wells within the City of La Habra.

Surface water is currently not monitored in the Cities of La Habra and Brea overlying the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Recycled water is not used within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. Imported surface water and groundwater is used within the La Habra-Brea Management Area for potable supply. These potable water sources are monitored prior to delivery and not directly monitored by the Cities of La Habra and Brea.

5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS
Groundwater Elevations
Since 2008, the City of La Habra has measured non-pumping and pumping groundwater elevations at its production wells to review general trends in groundwater elevations in the Basin.

The City of La Habra will supplement its existing groundwater elevation monitoring program by including water level measurements reported by DWR for three monitoring wells in the La Habra Basin. Groundwater elevations have previously been reported by DWR for wells 3/10-9G1, 3/10-8B2, and 3/10-18C1; however, only well 3/10-9G1 is currently being reported. Currently, La Habra is working to expand its monitoring network. See Section 9.2 for additional information.

Groundwater Quality
Currently, the City samples for constituents at its production wells pursuant to Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 22). Under Title 22, the City monitors and reports groundwater quality for constituents that are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water pertaining to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The City of La Habra also monitors areas of contamination, as described in its Drinking Water Source Assessments provided to the Division of Drinking Water for its production wells. The City of La Habra plans to continue to review and comment on documents regarding these areas within the City limits as well as be aware of any areas outside of its jurisdiction that may affect the water quality of the Basin through surface or subsurface flow.

The City of La Habra plans to continue its existing groundwater water quality monitoring program and will evaluate the need for additional monitoring above its current program in accordance with DWR GSP regulations.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 5-2

5.3 OTHER MONITORING PROGRAMS
Currently the City of La Habra does not perform any surface water quality monitoring; however, the City of La Habra will investigate any existing programs for the Coyote Creek Watershed including monitoring programs being developed in response to regulations set forth for the watershed by the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (Coyote Creek is shown on the Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list of impaired waters). The City of La Habra will consider developing and implementing its own surface and subsurface inflow quality monitoring programs for the local watershed in accordance with DWR GSP regulations.

Likewise, the City of La Habra does not monitor land subsidence within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. However, the City may develop a program to monitor and measure the rate of land surface subsidence in accordance with DWR GSP regulations in the future if a land subsidence is determined to be likely to cause undesirable results.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 6-1
SECTION 6. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMS
Groundwater resources protection is considered a critical component for safeguarding the long- term sustainability of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Groundwater resources protection includes water resources planning and an ordinance to prohibit the extraction and exportation of groundwater underlying the City for use outside the City as well as groundwater protection programs including well construction, abandonment, and destruction policies, wellhead protection, and the control of the migration and remediation of contaminated, poor quality, or saline water.

6.1 LAND USE ELEMENTS RELATED TO BASIN

MANAGEMENT
The Cities of Brea and La Habra participate in two water resources management planning documents: the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and the Urban Water Management Plan.

Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a collaborative approach of implementing water management solutions on a regional scale in order to address water resources needs.

The Greater Los County Region has been designated as an IRWM region and is comprised of the following subregions: North Santa Monica Bay, South Bay, Upper Los Angeles River, Upper San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers, and Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers. The Coyote Creek watershed, which overlies the La Habra Groundwater Basin, is within the Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers IRWM subregion. The La Habra Groundwater Basin contributes a small portion of the groundwater produced within the subregion.

Urban Water Management Plan
Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act require every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually to prepare, adopt, and file an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Cities of Brea and La Habra both are required to file an UWMP every five years with DWR. The UWMP is a management tool that provides water planning and identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future water demands.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 6-2

6.2 GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND

MANAGEMENT
Well Construction, Abandonment, and Destruction Policies The policies that govern well construction, abandonment, and destruction are designed specifically to protect groundwater quality. The administration of these policies has been delegated to individual counties by California legislature. As stated in Orange County Ordnance No. 2607, all well activity within Orange County will comply with the standards set in DWR Bulletin 74, Chapter 2. These standards are enforced by the Orange County Health Care Agency. The Cities of La Habra and Brea properly construct and abandon wells pursuant to Orange County Ordnance No. 2607.

Wellhead Protection Measures
Wellhead protection is a way to prevent drinking water from being contaminated by managing sources of potential contamination within the vicinity of a production well. Surface contaminants can enter a well through the outside edge of the well casing or directly through opening in the well head. These contaminants can travel in two directions: to the groundwater aquifer or to the distribution system. As defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, a wellhead protection area is “the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or well field supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach such water well or well field.”
The Cities of La Habra and Brea design and construct wells in accordance with the measures described in DWR Bulletin 74 so that the wellhead is protected from contamination. Important wellhead protection measures described in Bulletin 74 include: methods for sealing the well from intrusion from surface contaminants, site grading to assure drainage is away from the wellhead, and set-back requirements from known pollution sources.

Control of Migration and Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater Groundwater can become contaminated naturally or through human activity. Based on a 2010 drinking water assessment performed by the City of La Habra, sources of potential groundwater contamination to the La Habra Basin include: car repair and bodywork shops, gas stations, machine and metalwork shops, and sewer collection systems (La Habra, 2013).

The City of La Habra has previously taken the position that oil and gas mining operations in or up gradient of the basin have the potential to release chemicals that could contaminate groundwater, particularly during fracking activities.

The Cities of La Habra and Brea will monitor the migration of contaminants through its water quality monitoring program and will also monitor nearby oil and gas mining operations. This will allow the point and non-point pollution sources to be identified. If contamination becomes a concern in the future, an approach to address the problem will be developed.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 6-3
Control of Saline Water Intrusion
Raised salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of the southwestern United States and southern California, including Orange County. Elevated salinity is of concern as it can limit the implementation of recycling water projects and potentially require water purveyors to perform additional treatment on their water supplies.

The level of salinity is sometimes measured based on Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations. The TDS concentrations in the La Habra Basin are naturally occurring and it is not believed that current activities in the basin significantly contribute to the TDS loading in the basin. The TDS concentrations are not a result of saline water intrusion. The TDS concentrations in the City of La Habra’s wells are below the secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 1,000 mg/L. TDS is listed as a secondary constituent as it does not directly cause harm to consumers but can affect the aesthetic quality of the water, including taste.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention
The City of La Habra is under the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Order R8-2009-0030. The current adopted permit requires mandates for the implementation of water quality control programs including adopting development standards for existing and new development. Although the NPDES permitting program is intended to protect surface water quality by preventing unauthorized stormwater discharges and discharges to navigable water, groundwater quality is also protected through the NPDES program incidental percolation of surface water into the groundwater occurs.

The City of La Habra implements additional best management practices to prevent pollutant discharges. To assist developers and owners with implementation of NPDES requirements and best management practices for construction projects, the City of La Habra has created a Construction Runoff Guidance Manual. Likewise, the Model Water Quality Management Plan has been developed to address urban runoff and pollution. A water quality ordinance has been adopted (La Habra Municipal Code Chapter 13.24) to locally enforce California stormwater regulations. Additionally, the City of La Habra conducts investigations, inspections, trainings, maintenance, and public education to reduce pollution and contamination. These management practices
Blending Program
As discussed in Section 3.2.5, groundwater contamination exists in portions of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. To manage groundwater quality concerns, the City of La Habra blends groundwater from the La Habra Groundwater Basin with imported water (both groundwater and surface water) in order to reduce contaminant levels prior to distribution. See also Section 11.4 discussion on management programs.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 6-4

6.3 GROUNDWATER EXPORT PROHIBITION
The protection of the health, welfare, and safety of the residents and economy of the City of La Habra require that the groundwater resources of the City be protected for present and future municipal, industrial, and domestic beneficial uses within the City. The sustainable yield of the portion of the La Habra Basin underlying the City is not sufficient to serve beneficial uses in addition to the beneficial municipal, industrial and domestic uses currently served through the City municipal water system. The best interest of the present and future inhabitants of the City is served by the prohibition against the extraction and exportation of groundwater produced from within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, on December 21, 2015, the City of La Habra adopted Ordinance No. 1767 to prohibit the extraction and exportation of groundwater underlying the City for use outside of the City.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 7-5
SECTION 7. NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION
The Cities of La Habra and Brea overlie the La Habra Groundwater Basin and are the only producers of groundwater within the basin. Potential agencies that may additionally have a stake in the successful management of the basin include:
• Central Basin Watermaster (DWR): adjudicated Central Basin (Los Angeles) • OCWD: actively manages Orange County portion
• City of Fullerton: included in OCWD’s service area

7.2 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS
As the City of Brea is a direct stakeholder in the Orange County portion of the La Habra Basin outside of OCWD’s service area, Brea was included in the preparation of this plan.

While the Central Basin Watermaster, OCWD, and the City of Fullerton do not have a direct stake in the Orange County portion of the La Habra Basin outside of OCWD’s service area that is the focus of this Plan, the portions of the historical La Habra Basin underlying these entities are hydrologically connected to the portion of the basin that is the subject of this Plan. As such these entities were informed that OCWD was preparing this Plan and the planned management of the basin was discussed with them.

7.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of La Habra has invited the public to participate in City Council meetings where management of the La Habra Basin and future actions have been discussed and presented.

See the 2017 Alternative for additional information.

The La Habra GSA will strive to involve the public in groundwater management decisions regarding the La Habra-Brea Management Area. In the future, the La Habra GSA plans to provide copies of the periodic groundwater reports that will be prepared to the public at their request and publish information on groundwater management accomplishments on the City’s website. The La Habra GSA will also comply with the public participation requirements under SGMA.

7.4 COMMUNICATION PLAN
The La Habra GSA plans to prepare a summary report of the current conditions of the La Habra Groundwater Basin ideally every two to five years using the results from the monitoring program (see Section 5.0). These informative reports will be used to plan future groundwater projects, develop new groundwater policies, and identify any new concerns with the basin.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 8-1
SECTION 8. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT

APPROACH
As the City of La Habra currently depends on local groundwater to meet approximately 40 percent of its water consumption and the City of Brea uses groundwater to meet irrigation needs, preserving the sustainability of the La Habra Groundwater Basin is essential for the well- being of the two cities. Currently (and historically), the City of La Habra manages (and has managed) the La Habra Groundwater Basin through management plans and programs for groundwater levels, basin storage, and water quality, discussed below in Sections 9, 10, and 11, respectively. Seawater intrusion and land subsidence are not occurring in the La Habra-Brea Management Area, and are not anticipated to occur; therefore, they are not actively managed at this time. Likewise, groundwater-surface water interactions are not actively managed at this time. No undesirable results have been observed in the La Habra Groundwater Basin.

As a key component of sustainable management, the Cities of La Habra and Brea strongly promote conservation as a means to preserve water supplies. Both cities have sections on their websites dedicated to water conservation in addition to including conservation guidance in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports distributed to residents.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 9-2
SECTION 9. MANAGING GROUNDWATER LEVELS
A solid understanding of groundwater elevations, seasonal fluctuations and response to pumping, existing basin yield, and how groundwater is stored and transmitted through the basin is critical for sustainably managing the La Habra-Brea Management Area.

9.1 HISTORY OF BASIN CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT

ACTIONS
As shown on Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6, groundwater levels in the La Habra-Brea Management Area have recovered from lows in the 1930 to 1950s and have experienced a general rising trend and leveling off since the 1970s. Given consistent groundwater production within the estimated safe yield of the basin, groundwater levels are expected to remain steady in the future.

9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS
The City of La Habra recognizes the great importance of monitoring groundwater levels and acknowledges the current data gaps in the monitoring network. Monitoring groundwater levels is critical to basin management because water levels impact other potential undesirable results:
loss of groundwater in storage, degraded water quality, land subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surface water. Groundwater levels can serve as a proxy for identifying potential impacts related to other groundwater conditions.

As discussed in Section 5.2, the City has measured non-pumping and pumping groundwater elevations at its production wells since 2008. At the time the Alternative was first being developed, there were several additional wells actively being monitored in the La Habra Basin by other agencies. These wells with water level data included wells 3/10-9G1, 3/10-8B2, and 3/10-18C1. Many of these wells are no longer being monitored which is causing data gaps.

Accordingly, La Habra is currently evaluating potential groundwater wells for inclusion into an expanded monitoring program as part of compliance under SGMA. The need for standard and multi-level monitoring wells to monitor the three aquifers of the basin is being investigated. The La Habra GSA may potentially request State assistance through the Technical Services Support program to install additional monitoring wells. The proposed monitoring program will include wells located within the vicinity of the La Habra Basin. La Habra has been in coordination with the Department of Water Resources regarding wells located in the La Habra Basin that have previously been included in bulletins/reports published by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in order to acquire pertinent well information that is not publicly available. These wells and other existing monitoring wells are currently being screened and evaluated for available data and suitability for inclusion in the monitoring network for the La Habra Groundwater Basin.

Updates and modifications to the monitoring network will be discussed in the next Annual Report.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 9-3
Characterization of the conditions of the basin using the City’s existing groundwater elevation data from its production wells may not reflect steady state conditions because the wells pump frequently and groundwater levels within the wells do not have enough time to fully recover to obtain a static elevation before the well is put into production once more. Static elevations may be recorded through the use of monitoring wells where no pumping is performed and the well is constantly in a static condition.

9.3 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE

LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS
The definition of significant and unreasonable lowering of groundwater levels in the La Habra- Brea Management Area is a lowering of groundwater levels such that a significant loss of well production capacity or a significant degradation of water quality occurs which would impact the intended and current beneficial uses of the groundwater. Currently, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has designated the beneficial uses of groundwater in the La Habra- Brea Management Area to be Municipal and Domestic Supply and Agriculture.

The La Habra Groundwater Basin is currently managed within the safe yield, and groundwater levels have shown rising or stable trends in recent years, as shown by the available groundwater level hydrographs (see Section 3.2). Likewise, no other potential impacts are occurring such as loss of capacity at groundwater production wells, water quality degradation, or land subsidence. Accordingly, there are currently no undesirable results occurring related to the chronic lowering of groundwater levels.

9.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS
There are no minimum thresholds established for groundwater levels in the La Habra Groundwater Basin because the basin is currently not in overdraft and is managed within the safe yield of the basin. Accordingly, no undesirable results are occurring. General water levels trends have shown rising and recovering groundwater levels over the past several decades with water levels being relatively stable for the past several years. Additionally, the prolonged and significant regional drought between 2011-2017 did not cause water levels to lower significantly or unreasonably. See Section 3.2.

Recognizing that historical water levels have been significantly lower in previous decades, the La Habra GSA will continue to monitor groundwater levels to determine if chronic or significant lowering of groundwater levels are observed. If declines are observed, the La Habra GSA will evaluate its groundwater management operations, re-evaluate the safe yield, and establish minimum thresholds, where appropriate, and in accordance with SGMA.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 10-1
SECTION 10. MANAGING BASIN STORAGE

10.1 HISTORY
As discussed in Section 9.1, groundwater levels in the La Habra Groundwater Basin have recovered from lows in the 1930 to 1950s and have experienced a general rising trend and leveling off since the 1970s. Given steady groundwater production within the estimated safe yield of the basin, groundwater levels are expected to remain steady in the future; consequently, water in storage is similarly anticipated to remain steady.

10.2 MONITORING STORAGE LEVELS
The monitoring of storage levels is indirectly monitored through the groundwater level monitoring program described in Section 9.2.

10.3 MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

10.3.1 Establishment of Safe Yield
A “safe yield” is used for ongoing management and future planning of a groundwater basin for sustained beneficial use. It is generally defined as the volume of groundwater that can be pumped annually without depleting the aquifer beyond its ability to recover through natural recharge over a reasonable hydrologic period. As discussed in Section 4.4, the approximate safe yield of the basin is 4,500 AFY, determined by taking the average of two methods to determine the natural discharge and natural recharge of the basin.

Based on a review of groundwater elevations performed in January 2014, groundwater elevations in the San Pedro aquifer of the La Habra Basin appear to have risen about 100 feet from the 1940s to the present with an overall rising trend of 50 to 60 feet between 1970 and 2007 (Stetson, 2014). Therefore, it appears that the basin is not currently in an overdraft condition. More recently, groundwater levels appear to be stable indicating no unreasonable loss of groundwater in storage.

The City of La Habra maintains sustainable groundwater production by maintaining and coordinating groundwater production within the estimated safe yield of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. This results in no undesirable results caused by depletion of groundwater in storage.

10.3.2 Review and Evaluation of Groundwater Levels
The condition of the basin can be verified through a periodic review of groundwater elevations within the basin. The City can utilize and supplement its existing groundwater elevation monitoring program to review general trends in groundwater elevations in the Basin.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 10-2
As discussed in Section 9.2, the City has evaluated the current monitoring network and has determined additional monitoring of groundwater elevations is required in the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Additional monitoring wells are currently being evaluated for inclusion into the monitoring program. When the City of La Habra chooses to expand its groundwater monitoring program in the future, the City will prepare basin management reports on a periodic basis (every two to five years) using the results of the monitoring program. These informative reports will be used to review whether groundwater production is within the safe yield of the basin, plan future groundwater projects, develop new groundwater policies, and identify any new concerns within the La Habra-Brea Management Area.

10.3.3 Groundwater Recharge or Storage Projects
The City of La Habra currently does not operate any groundwater recharge or storage projects.

In the future, the City may perform a basin replenishment study that identifies potential recharge areas and measures to protect these areas. Two areas where a groundwater recharge project could be studied for implementation are shown in Figure 10-1. The San Pedro Formation is naturally recharged directly through aquifer outcrops (exposed formation sediments) in the Los Coyote Hills (south of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway) and in the Puente Hills (along the foothills north of Whittier Boulevard) [Montgomery, 1977]. The San Pedro Formation could also be indirectly recharged through the uplifted and exposed San Pedro beds that lie just below a thin layer of alluvium along the Coyote Creek valley (Montgomery, 1977).

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 10-3

Figure 10-1: Potential Groundwater Recharge Locations.

As discussed in Section 2.2, the City of La Habra is located in the Coyote Creek Watershed.

The Coyote Creek Watershed is included in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for the Orange County Santa Ana Region. The City implements stormwater control practices as required by the NPDES permit. Stormwater recharge activities in compliance with the NPDES permit program may occur in the future.

The City of La Habra currently does not operate any conjunctive use projects. The City may study the feasibility of conjunctive use projects in the future.

10.3.4 Potential Management Programs
No known desktop flow model exists for the La Habra Basin. As such, the La Habra GSA will consider developing a desktop flow model for the La Habra-Brea Management Area in the future once a sufficient amount of data are collected (as additional monitoring wells are constructed and monitored, for example). Groundwater models are used to represent natural flow conditions of an aquifer and can predict the effects of hydrological changes (such as pumping and replenishment) on the behavior of the aquifer.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 10-4

10.4 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE

REDUCTION IN STORAGE
As with groundwater levels, the definition of significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage in the La Habra-Brea Management Area is a lowering of groundwater levels such that a significant loss of well production capacity or a significant degradation of water quality occurs which would impact the intended use of the groundwater. Currently, there are no observed undesirable results observed related to the chronic loss of groundwater in storage. Since the Basin is managed within the safe yield, no chronic loss of groundwater in storage is anticipated.

10.5 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS
As with groundwater levels, minimum thresholds have not been established for changes in groundwater storage. If chronic or significant lowering of groundwater levels is observed through groundwater level monitoring, the La Habra GSA will evaluate its groundwater management operations, re-evaluate the safe yield, and establish minimum thresholds, where appropriate, and in accordance with SGMA. Groundwater levels would be used as a proxy to set thresholds for groundwater in storage.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 11-1
SECTION 11. MANAGING BASIN WATER QUALITY
It is the intent of the La Habra GSA to protect and enhance the groundwater quality in the La Habra-Brea Management Area. This can be achieved through groundwater quality programs, understanding the quality of surface waters and subsurface water that naturally recharge the basin, and implementing measures to protect potential recharge areas.

11.1 HISTORY
Previous investigations of water quality within the La Habra Groundwater Basin determined that the quality is extremely variable. Overall, groundwater from the San Pedro Aquifer is considered to be of fair to good quality (Montgomery, 1979). However, groundwater produced from the La Habra Groundwater Basin is currently blended with imported water prior to distribution in order to reduce certain contaminant levels.

11.2 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY ISSUES
As discussed in Section 3.2.5, water from the La Bonita and Portola Wells is chlorinated and then blended with water purchased from the California Domestic Water Company in a 250,000- gallon forebay to reduce the concentration of minerals prior to entering the City of La Habra’s distribution system (La Habra, 2014).

The City of Brea’s non-potable well is strictly used for irrigation purposes as the groundwater beneath the city has poor water quality and would require extensive treatment and blending with higher quality water to meet public health standards (Malcolm Pirnie, 2011).

11.3 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY
The La Habra GSA will continue the City of La Habra’s existing water quality monitoring program, described in Section 5.2, and supplement the program as required by SGMA. If the La Habra GSA were to choose to construct monitoring wells for groundwater elevations, these wells can also be sampled for water quality.

The La Habra Basin is recharged through surface runoff and streamflow recharge as well as mountain front recharge (Stetson, 2013). Understanding the quality of the surface and subsurface water that recharges the La Habra Basin is important in protecting and enhancing the water quality of the groundwater basin as the groundwater within the basin originates from these waters. Although the City currently does not have a surface water quality monitoring program for the Coyote Creek Watershed, the La Habra GSA will investigate any existing programs for the watershed including regulations set forth for the watershed by the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (Coyote Creek is shown on the Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list of impaired waters). The La Habra GSA will consider developing and implementing its own surface and subsurface inflow quality monitoring programs for the local watershed in the future.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 11-2
To protect the water quality of the Basin, the La Habra GSA will continue to monitor and review areas of contamination within the La Habra-Brea Management Area, as described in its Drinking Water Source Assessments provided to State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) for its production wells. The La Habra GSA will continue to review and comment on documents within the La Habra-Brea Management Area as well as be aware of any areas outside of its jurisdiction that may affect the water quality of the La Habra-Brea Management Area through surface or subsurface flow.

11.4 DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
The management programs intended to protect the groundwater quality of the La Habra-Brea Management Area and prevent groundwater quality degradation include well construction, abandonment, and destruction policies, wellhead protection measures, control of migration and remediation of contaminated water, and control of saline water. Indirectly, the City of La Habra’s Stormwater contamination protection programs help prevent groundwater quality degradation as well. See Section 6.

As discussed in Section 3.2.5, groundwater contamination exists in portions of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. The contaminants in the local groundwater are primarily naturally occurring and are not caused by excess groundwater production. Consequently, the only effective management action to address groundwater with existing poor water quality is treatment. As discussed previously, the City of La Habra blends groundwater from the La Habra Groundwater Basin with imported water (both groundwater and surface water) in order to reduce contaminant levels prior to distribution.

11.5 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE

DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY
The definition of significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality is a reduction of water quality in the La Habra-Brea Management Area such that the groundwater can no longer be used for the intended purposes even with the implementation of reasonable mitigation measures or management actions. Currently, the City of Brea only uses groundwater produced from the La Habra Groundwater Basin for irrigation; however, the City of La Habra uses groundwater for its potable supply, thus requiring a higher level of quality. Currently, groundwater produced from the La Habra Groundwater Basin is able to be put to beneficial use as a potable water supply. Historically, groundwater quality in the La Habra Groundwater Basin has been variable with areas with poor water quality; however, these historical water quality issues are not caused by groundwater management actions or current groundwater production (see Section 3.2.5). Thus, no undesirable results related to degraded water supply are occurring. See Section 11.6 below for further discussion.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 11-3

11.6 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THREHOLDS
Because groundwater from the La Habra Groundwater Basin is used as a potable source, the minimum thresholds for groundwater quality are exceedances of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or other applicable regulatory limits that are directly attributable to groundwater management actions in the La Habra-Brea Management Area that prevents the use of groundwater for its intended purpose. As discussed previously, the current water quality concerns in the La Habra Groundwater Basin are naturally occurring and are not caused by over-production or other groundwater management actions. These concerns pre-date SGMA legislation and are currently being managed through a blending program. Drinking water distributed to residents in the cities of Brea and La Habra currently meet all regulatory requirements. Accordingly, undesirable results as defined above in Section 11.5 by the definition of “significant and unreasonable” are not occurring and are not anticipated to occur due to groundwater production being managed within the Basin sustainable yield. If groundwater water quality trends indicate declining water quality, additional management actions will be established.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 12-1
SECTION 12. MANAGING SEAWATER INTRUSION
The La Habra Groundwater Basin is not located near the ocean. Accordingly, there is no need to manage or consider the potential impact of seawater intrusion in the La Habra-Brea Management Area.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 13-1
SECTION 13. MANAGING LAND SUBSIDENCE
As discussed in Section 3.2.6, there is no evidence that land subsidence is, or will likely become, problematic within the La Habra-Brea Management Area. Accordingly, sustainable management criteria or active monitoring are not required at this time. However, the City of La Habra may develop a program to monitor and measure the rate of land surface subsidence within the La Habra-Brea Management Area in accordance with DWR GSP regulations if it is determined that there is a potential for significant or unreasonable land subsidence to occur.

The need for land surface subsidence monitoring will be considered on an annual basis.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 14-1
SECTION 14. MANAGING GROUNDWATER

DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE
WATER
As discussed in Section 3.2.7, the La Habra Groundwater Basin lies within the Coyote Creek Watershed with the major creeks in the watershed being Coyote Creek, Brea Creek, Fullerton Creek, Carbon Creek, Moody Creek, and Los Alamitos Channel. The watershed is highly urbanized with densely populated areas of residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as open space. Montgomery (1977) determined that about 30% of the runoff available in an average rainfall year percolates to the aquifers underlying the La Habra Valley.

In recent years, the depth to groundwater from the ground surface is approximately 30 feet (see Figure 3-6. However, groundwater production occurs within the confined San Pedro aquifer which is significantly deeper than the perched alluvial aquifer with a depth to groundwater of approximately 140 feet in the year 2000 (see Figure 3-6). As discussed previously in Section

3.2.7, there are small areas overlying the La Habra Groundwater Basin identified as GDEs. The areas of vegetation identified as groundwater dependent ecosystems are along the base of the surrounding hills at the limits of the basin where groundwater is shallow. The vegetation is also supported by surface water runoff and rainfall. Additionally, these areas are not located near the groundwater production wells which produce from the confined San Pedro aquifer. Accordingly, groundwater production is not anticipated impact surface waters and local habitats Thus, there is no evidence that groundwater depletions will impact surface water or groundwater dependent ecosystems within the La Habra-Brea Management Area.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 15-1
SECTION 15. PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING

MONITORING PROGRAMS
Available data and groundwater management programs are reviewed annually. Additionally, data gaps are identified and evaluated. This plan will be amended to reflect any new policies or practices relevant to the management of the La Habra-Brea Management Area. It will also be updated to reflect changes in groundwater conditions as necessary.

Monitoring protocols are necessary to ensure consistency and accuracy in monitoring efforts and are required for monitoring assessments to be valid. Consistency should be reflected in factors such as the locations of the sampling points, frequency and seasonality of measurements, sampling procedures, and testing procedures. Accordingly, the La Habra GSA will undertake uniform data gathering procedures to ensure comparable measurements of groundwater are taken.

15.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR WATER

QUALITY
The protocols for water quality sampling are discussed in the 2017 Alternative.

15.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION/STORAGE
The protocols for groundwater level measurements are discussed in the 2017 Alternative.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 16-1
SECTION 16. PROCESS TO EVALUATE NEW

PROJECTS
The La Habra GSA will evaluate any proposed actions for the La Habra-Brea Management Area pursuant to this Basin 8-1 Alternative in cooperation with the City of Brea. Additionally, new projects would be evaluated through the CEQA process (i.e. by reviewing and commenting on draft CEQA documents). Likewise, OCWD would have an opportunity to comment on projects proposed within the La Habra-Brea Management Area, but OCWD has no authority under this Plan to obstruct any action taken by the La Habra GSA regarding the La Habra-Brea Management Area.

La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 17-1
SECTION 17. LIST OF REFERENCES AND

TECHNICAL STUDIES

Arcadis. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, City of La Habra.

Arcadis. 2016. Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, City of Brea.

Atkins, 2012. City of La Habra General Plan Update. Technical Background Report.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1934. South Coastal Basin Investigation:

Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill. Bulletin No. 45. Written while DWR was the California Department of Public Works.

DWR. 1947. South Coastal Basin Investigation: Overdraft on Ground Water Basins. Bulletin No.

53. Written while DWR was the California Division of Water Resources.

DWR, 2021a. DWR. SGMA Data Viewer. Accessed November 9, 2021. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#landsub DWR, 2021b. DWR. Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) Dataset Viewer. Accessed November 9, 2021.
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/NCDatasetViewer/
Geoscience. 2009. Draft Preliminary Geohydrologic Evaluation of the La Habra Basin. Prepared for City of La Habra, April 2, 2009.

Malcolm Pirnie, 2011. Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. City of La Habra.

Montgomery, Consulting Engineers Inc. (Montgomery). 1977, November. La Habra Basin Groundwater Study.

Montgomery, 1979, July. Exploratory Drilling in the La Habra Groundwater Basin, Summary Report and Evaluation.

Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015. Groundwater Management Plan 2105 Update, Orange County Water District.

Stetson Engineers Inc. August, 2013. Draft Technical Report: Task 1 Re-Evaluation of Basin Safe Yield.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 2014. Task 3 Hydrogeologic Investigation of the La Habra Groundwater Basin. Technical Memorandum.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2021. Areas of Land Subsidence in California.

Accessed November 9, 2021.
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html Yerkes, R.F. 1972. Geology and Oil Resources of the Western Puente Hills Area, Southern California. Geology of the Eastern Los Angeles Basins, Southern California. Geological La Habra-Brea Management Area

2017 BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 17-2
Survey Professional Paper 420-C; A study of the stratigraphy, structure, and oil resources of the La Habra and Whittier quadrangles.

Basin 8-1 Alternative
OCWD Management Area
2022 UPDATE

Prepared by: Orange County Water District

January 1, 2022

Basin 8-1 Alternative
OCWD Management Area
2022 UPDATE
Roy Herndon, P.G., C.Hg.

Chief Hydrogeologist
Orange County Water District
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Prepared for the Department of Water Resources, pursuant to Water Code §10733.6(b)(3), (c) and §10733.6

January 1, 2022

Table of Contents

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents i

Section Page

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................... 1-1

1.1 GROUNDWATER BASIN CONDITIONS ................................ ................................ ..... 1-2

1.2 WATER BUDGET ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1-6

1.3 WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................ ..................... 1-7

1.4 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS................................ ........................ 1-7

1.5 NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION ................................ ................................ .............. 1-9

1.6 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT ................................ ................................ ...... 1-9

1.6.1 Sustainable Management: Water Levels ................................................. 1-10

1.6.2 Sustainable Management: Basin Storage ............................................... 1-10

1.6.3 Sustainable Management: Water Quality ................................................ 1-12

1.6.4 Sustainable Management: Seawater Intrusion ........................................ 1-12

1.6.5 Sustainable Management: Land Subsidence .......................................... 1-13

1.6.6 Sustainable Management: Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters 1-13

1.7 PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................ . 1-13

1.8 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS ................................ ............................. 1-13

1.9 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1-14 SECTION 2 AGENCY INFORMATION ................................ ................................ ................. 2-1

2.1 HISTORY OF OCWD ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2-1

2.2 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ................................ ................. 2-2

2.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2-2

2.4 BUDGET ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2-3 SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT AREA DESCRIPTION ................................ ............................. 3-4

3.1 OCWD MANAGEMENT AREA ................................ ................................ .................... 3-4

3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................ ................................ ................ 3-7 Table of Contents

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents ii

3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation Contours .............................................................. 3-7

3.2.2 Regional Pumping Patterns..................................................................... 3-10

3.2.3 Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs .................................... 3-11

3.2.4 Groundwater Storage Data ..................................................................... 3-18

3.3 BASIN MODEL ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3-18

3.3.1 Groundwater Quality Conditions .......................................................... 3-19

3.3.2 Coastal Gaps .......................................................................................... 3-26

3.3.3 Land Subsidence .................................................................................... 3-27

3.3.4 Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems ......................................................................................... 3-28 SECTION 4 WATER BUDGET ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-1

4.1 WATER BUDGET COMPONENTS ................................ ................................ ............. 4-1

4.1.1 Measured Recharge .................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.2 Unmeasured Recharge ............................................................................. 4-1

4.1.3 Groundwater Production ........................................................................... 4-2

4.1.4 Subsurface Outflow ................................................................................... 4-3

4.1.5 Evaporation ............................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 WATER YEAR TYPE ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-3

4.3 ESTIMATE OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD ................................ ................................ ........ 4-4

4.4 WATER BUDGETS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4-4 SECTION 5 WATER RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................ ........... 5-1

5.1 OVERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5-1

5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................ .......................... 5-1

5.2.1 Groundwater Production Monitoring .......................................................... 5-4

5.2.2 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring ............................................................ 5-5

5.2.3 Groundwater Quality Monitoring ................................................................ 5-8 Table of Contents

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents iii

5.2.4 Coastal Area Monitoring ............................................................................ 5-2

5.3 SURFACE WATER AND RECYCLED WATER MONITORING ................................ ... 5-4

5.3.1 Surface Water Monitoring Programs ......................................................... 5-5

5.3.2 Recycled Water Monitoring ....................................................................... 5-6 SECTION 6 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................ ........ 6-1

6.1 LAND USE ELEMENTS RELATED TO BASIN MANAGEMENT ................................ . 6-1

6.1.1 Summary of Plans Related to Basin Management .................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Land Use Development and Water Demands and Supply ........................ 6-2

6.1.3 Well Construction, Management, and Closure .......................................... 6-2

6.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ............................ 6-3

6.2.1 Regulation and Management of Contaminants ......................................... 6-4

6.3 RECYCLED WATER PRODUCTION ................................ ................................ .......... 6-5

6.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 6-5

6.4 FINAL EXPANSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6-5

6.5 CONJUNCTIVE USE PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ ............. 6-7

6.5.1 Sources of Recharge Water Supplies ....................................................... 6-8

6.5.2 Surface Water Recharge Facilities ............................................................ 6-4

6.6 MANAGEMENT OF SEAWATER INTRUSION ................................ ........................... 6-5

6.6.1 Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier ............................................................ 6-6

6.6.2 Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier .......................................................... 6-6 SECTION 7 NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION ................................ ................................ ..... 7-1

7.1 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER USERS ................................ ........................... 7-1

7.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................ ................................ ........................... 7-2

7.3 COMMUNICATION PLAN ................................ ................................ ........................... 7-2 SECTION 8 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT ................................ ............................ 8-1

8.1 SUSTAINABILITY GOAL ................................ ................................ ............................. 8-1 Table of Contents

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents iv

SECTION 9 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS .... 9-1

9.1 HISTORY/SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9-1

9.2 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY ..................... 9-1

9.3 MANAGEMENT OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY ................... 9-2

9.4 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS ................................ ................................ .................... 9-5

9.5 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLD ................................ ......................... 9-6 SECTION 10 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO BASIN STORAGE .............. 10-1

10.1 HISTORY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 10-1

10.2 CALCULATION OF GROUNDWATER STORAGE LEVELS ................................ ... 10-2

10.3 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ................................ ........................ 10-3

10.3.1 Basin Operating Range ......................................................................... 10-3

10.3.2 Balancing Production and Recharge ..................................................... 10-3

10.3.3 Managing Basin Pumping ..................................................................... 10-3

10.3.4 Supply Management Strategies ............................................................ 10-5

10.4 DEVELOPING NEW LOCAL WATER RESOURCES POLICY ................................ 10-5

10.4.1 Water Demands .................................................................................... 10-6

10.5 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE REDUCTION OF GROUNDWATER STORAGE ................................ ................................ .............. 10-7

10.6 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................ ................... 10-1 SECTION 11 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO WATER QUALITY .............. 11-1

11.1 SALINITY MANAGEMENT ................................ ................................ ...................... 11-1

11.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ................................ .... 11-1

DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 11-8

11.4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................ ................... 11-9 SECTION 12 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO SEAWATER INTRUSION ... 12-1 Table of Contents

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents v

12.1 TALBERT GAP ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12-1

12.1.1 Talbert Barrier Groundwater Model ....................................................... 12-2

12.2 ALAMITOS GAP ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12-3

12.2.1 Alamitos Barrier Groundwater Model .................................................... 12-5

12.3 SUNSET GAP ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 12-5

12.3.1 Evaluation of Sunset Gap Alternatives .................................................. 12-7

12.4 BOLSA GAP ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 12-10

12.5 NEWPORT MESA ................................ ................................ ................................ . 12-11

12.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF SEAWATER INTRUSION PREVENTION POLICY .......... 12-12

12.6.1 Effective Barrier Operations ................................................................ 12-12

12.6.2 Barrier Performance Monitoring and Evaluation .................................. 12-13

12.6.3 Susceptible Coastal Area Monitoring and Evaluation .......................... 12-13

12.6.4 Coastal Groundwater Management .................................................... 12-14

12.7 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE SEAWATER INTRUSION12-14

12.8 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................ ................. 12-14 SECTION 13 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO LAND SUBSIDENCE .......... 13-1

13.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNREASONABLE LAND SUBSIDENCE THAT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERES WITH SURFACE USES ................................ ... 13-3

13.2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM THRESHOLDS ................................ ................... 13-4 SECTION 14 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS IMPACTING SURFACE WATER ................................ ................................ 14-1 SECTION 15 PROTOCOLS FOR MODIFYING MONITORING PROGRAMS ..................... 15-1 SECTION 16 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS ................................ ................. 16-1 SECTION 17 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ .............................. 17-1

Figure

Figure 1-1: Basin 8-1, OCWD Service Area and OCWD Management Area ............... 1-3 Table of Contents

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents vi

Figure 1-2: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal Aquifer, June 2021 ...... 1-4 Figure 1-3: Available Basin Storage WY1957-58 to 2020-21 ....................................... 1-5 Figure 1-4: Basin Production and Recharge Sources, WY1999-20 to 2020-21 ........... 1-7 Figure 1-5: Total Water Demands within OCWD, WY1997-98 to 2020-21 ................... 1-8 Figure 1-6: Example Hydrographs ............................................................................ 1-11 Figure 3-1: Basin 8-1, OCWD Service Area and OCWD Management Area ............... 3-4 Figure 3-2: Federal and State Lands ............................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-3: Retail Water Supply Agencies .................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-4: Land Uses .................................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-5: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Shallow Aquifer, June 2021 ....... 3-8 Figure 3-6: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Principal Aquifer, June 2021 ...... 3-9 Figure 3-7: Groundwater Elevation Contours for the Deep Aquifer, June 2021 ......... 3-10 Figure 3-8: Groundwater Production, WY2018-19 ..................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-9: Location of Long-Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrographs .................. 3-13 Figure 3-10: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SA-21 and GG-16 in Pressure Area 3-14 Figure 3-11: Water Level Hydrograph of Well A-27/AMD-9 in Forebay Area ............. 3-15 Figure 3-12: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SAR-1 and OCWD-CTG1 ............... 3-16 Figure 3-13: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells HBM-1 and IDM-1 ........................... 3-17 Figure 3-14: Groundwater Storage Change, June 2020 to June 2021 ....................... 3-18 Figure 3-15: OCWD Groundwater Basin Model Boundaries ...................................... 3-19 Figure 3-16: Regional Water Board Groundwater Management Zones ..................... 3-20 Figure 3-17: TDS in Groundwater Production Wells, ................................................. 3-22 Figure 3-18: Nitrate (as N) Levels in Groundwater Production Wells, ........................ 3-23 Figure 3-19: Groundwater Contamination Plume Locations ....................................... 3-26 Figure 3-20: Orange County Coastal Gaps ................................................................ 3-27 Figure 4-1: Estimated Subsurface Inflow ...................................................................... 4-2 Figure 5-1: OCWD Monitoring Wells ............................................................................ 5-2 Figure 5-2: Large and Small System Drinking Water Wells .......................................... 5-3 Figure 5-3: Private Domestic, Irrigation and Industrial Wells ........................................ 5-4 Figure 5-4: SGMA Shallow Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network .......................... 5-6 Figure 5-5: SGMA Principal Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network ......................... 5-7 Figure 5-6: SGMA Deep Aquifer System Monitoring Well Network .............................. 5-8 Figure 5-7: North Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells ............... 5-1 Figure 5-8: South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells ............... 5-2 Figure 5-9: Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells ......................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-10: Surface Water Monitoring Locations ........................................................ 5-5 Figure 5-11: Recycled Water Monitoring Wells ............................................................ 5-7 Figure 6-1: Groundwater Replenishment System ........................................................ 6-5 Figure 6-2: GWRS Final Expansion Overview ............................................................. 6-7 Figure 6-3: Historical Recharge in Surface Water Recharge System ........................... 6-2 Table of Contents

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Table of Contents vii

Figure 6-4: Locations of Imported Water Deliveries ..................................................... 6-3 Figure 6-5: OCWD Surface Water Recharge Facilities ................................................ 6-4 Figure 9-1: Shallow Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 ................ 9-3 Figure 9-2: Principal Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 ............... 9-4 Figure 9-3: Deep Aquifer Water Level Change, June 2020 to June 2021 .................... 9-5 Figure 11-1: Estimated TDS Concentration in Base Case for 30-year Period ............ 11-2 Figure 11-2: Water Quality Improvement Projects and Programs .............................. 11-2 Figure 11-3: North Basin Groundwater VOC Plume ................................................... 11-3 Figure 11-4: South Basin Groundwater Contaminant Plume ..................................... 11-4 Figure 11-5: Production Wells to be Treated to Remove PFAS ................................ 11-7 Figure 12-1: Talbert Gap – Seawater Intrusion Barrier.............................................. 12-2 Figure 12-2: Key Well OCWD-M26 Groundwater Levels, .......................................... 12-1 Figure 12-3: Talbert Gap 250 mg/L Chloride Concentration Contours ....................... 12-2 Figure 12-4: Alamitos Gap – Seawater Intrusion Barrier ............................................ 12-3 Figure 12-5: Alamitos Gap I Zone Chloride Concentration Contours, 2021 ............... 12-4 Figure 12-6: Schematic Geologic Cross-Section from Huntington Harbor ................. 12-5 Figure 12-7: Sunset Gap Chloride Concentrations, 2020 ........................................... 12-7 Figure 12-8: Alamitos-Sunset Gap Groundwater Model Boundaries .......................... 12-8 Figure 12-9: Potential Sunset Gap Barrier Project Facilities .................................... 12-10 Figure 12-10: Newport Mesa Chloride Contours, 2020 ............................................ 12-12 Figure 13-1: Total Vertical Ground Surface Displacement from June 2015 to July 2020 ................................................................................................................................... 13-3

Table

Table 3-1: TDS Water Quality Objectives for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones ......................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-2: Nitrate (as N) Water Quality Objective for ................................................. 3-23 Table 4-1 Water Budget, WY2016-17 to 2020-21 ........................................................ 4-1 Table 6-1: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies ......................................................... 6-1 Table 7-1: Major Groundwater Producers .................................................................... 7-1 Table 10-1: Management Actions based on Change in Groundwater Storage .......... 10-5 Table 10-2: Approaches to Refilling the Basin ........................................................... 10-1 Table 11-1: Baseline Projected Future Salt Inflows .................................................... 11-1 Table 11-2: Baseline Future Nitrate (as N) Inflows ..................................................... 11-1 Table 11-3: Summary of BEA Exemption Projects ..................................................... 11-8 OCWD Management Area

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-1

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is a special district formed in 1933 by an act of the California Legislature, the “OCWD Act”. OCWD manages the groundwater basin that underlies north and central Orange County pursuant to the OCWD Act. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply for approximately 2.5 million residents living within the service area boundaries. The mission of OCWD includes sustainably managing the Orange County Groundwater Basin, Basin 8-1, over the long-term. Additionally, as a special act district listed in Water Code § 10723 (c)(1), OCWD is the exclusive local agency within its jurisdictional boundaries with powers to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater management Act (SGMA) via a groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) or via an Alternative prepared in accordance with Water Code § 10733.6.

The OCWD Management Area includes 89 percent of the area designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as Basin 8-1, the “Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin” in Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2003). The OCWD Management Area includes the same land area as the OCWD service area within Basin 8-1 except for a small 6.7-square mile area in the northeast corner of the basin that is part of the Santa Ana Canyon Management Area. The boundaries of Basin 8-1, the OCWD service area and the OCWD Management Area are shown in Figure 1-1.

The agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to prepare and submit an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). In accordance with Water Code §10733.6(b)(3)(c), the Basin 8-1 Alternative presented an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrated that Basin 8- 1 had operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. The Alternative was submitted to DWR on December 22, 2016. On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative satisfied SGMA objectives and was therefore approved.

Approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR on April 1 of each year.

Annual reports for Basin 8-1 were submitted to DWR as follows:
• Water Year 2016-17, submitted on March 29, 2018
• Water Year 2017-18, submitted on March 29, 2019
• Water Year 2018-19, submitted on March 30, 2020
• Water Year 2019-20, submitted on March 30, 2021
*Note, the DWR Water Year extends from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.

According to Water Code §10733.8, “At least every five years after initial submission of a plan pursuant to Section 10733.4, the department shall review any available groundwater sustainability plan or alternative submitted in accordance with Section 10733.6, and the implementation of the corresponding groundwater sustainability program for consistency with this part, including achieving the sustainability goal. The department shall issue an assessment for each basin for which a plan or alternative has been submitted in accordance with this chapter, with an emphasis on assessing progress in achieving the sustainability goal within the OCWD Management Area

BASIN 8-1 ALTERNATIVE 2022 UPDATE Executive Summary 1-2

basin. The assessment may include recommended corrective actions to address any deficiencies identified by the department.”
This document, called the 2022 Update, represents the first five-year update, which is due January 1, 2022.

For purposes of this report, the Basin 8-1 Alternative submitted on December 22, 2016, will be referred to as the 2017 Alternative. The first five-year update will be referred to as the 2022 Update for ease of reference. The 2017 Alternative was a comprehensive document showing that Basin 8-1 had been managed sustainably for more than 10 years.

For the 2022 Update, the focus is on documenting that the basin has been sustainably managed during the five years since the 2017 Alternative was submitted and to present relevant new information from the last five years. As such, the 2017 Alternative is considered a key reference document with background information that is not duplicated in the 2022 Update.

1.1 GROUNDWATER BASIN CONDITIONS

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
OCWD prepares groundwater elevation contour maps for each of the three major aquifer systems (Shallow, Principal, and Deep) annually. In addition to illustrating regional groundwater gradients, the maps are used to prepare water level change maps and to calculate the amount of groundwater in storage and the annual storage change. OCWD’s basin-wide network of monitoring wells is used to monitor groundwater levels and quality, assess effects of pumping and recharge, estimate groundwater storage, characterize basin hydrogeology, and develop and calibrate a numerical flow model of the basin. Groundwater elevation contours for the Principal Aquifer as of June 2021 are shown in Figure 1-2.

City Council/Public Financing AuthorityMay 5, 2026

City Council/Public Financing Authority
May 5, 2026